JAC Vol 9/2 final 23/6/03 10:38 am Page 1

Journal o f
Architectural
Conservation

Patron: Sir Bernard Feilden

Editor: Dr David Watt

Volume 9 Number 2 July 2003

JAC Vol 9/2 final 23/6/03 10:38 am Page 2

Copyright © 2003 Donhead Publishing Ltd

In association with De Montfort University

All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any
form or by any means electronic, mechanical or otherwise without prior
permission from the publisher, Donhead Publishing.

Donhead Publishing
Lower Coombe
Donhead St Mary
Shaftesbury
Dorset SP7 9LY
Tel: 01747 828422
www.donhead.com

ISSN 1355-6207

Printed in Great Britain by

T J International Ltd, Padstow
JAC Vol 9/2 final 23/6/03 10:38 am Page 3

Contents

Editorial
DAVID WATT 5

The Characteristics and Properties of Rubbing Bricks

used for Gauged Brickwork – Part Two
SARA PAVÍA AND GERARD LYNCH 7

Approaches to Urban Conservation in Central

and Eastern Europe
DENNIS RODWELL 22

The Risk Map of Italian Cultural Heritage

GIORGIO ACCARDO, ELISABETTA GIANI AND
ANNAMARIA GIOVAGNOLI 41

Measured Surveys of Historic Buildings:

User Requirements and Technical Progress
ROSS DALLAS 58

Obituary: Freddie Charles (1912–2002)

BERNARD FEILDEN 82

Book Reviews 86

Books Received 95

Journal of Architectural Conservation No 2 July 2003 3

JAC Vol 9/2 final 23/6/03 10:38 am Page 22

Approaches to Urban
Conservation in Central and
Eastern Europe
DENNIS RODWELL

Abstract
Many have remarked upon the exceptional degree of survival of historic build-
ings and cities in Central and Eastern Europe during the post-Second World
War socialist period. Compared to the ideological and economic pressures for
re-planning and re-development that were the driving force for much unnec-
essary destruction in Western Europe, in the socialist block the value of the
historic environment as a usable resource served generally as a major agent
for its retention.
This paper aims to summarize the diversity of the urban heritage of the region
and the key challenges that it is facing in the post-socialist era; to present examples
of different approaches and provide commentary on the outcomes; and to
highlight the responsibilities and the opportunities for achieving exemplary
practice.
Although the specific context for this paper is Central and Eastern Europe,
the lessons it offers are relevant to urban conservation practice throughout
Europe and beyond.

Diversity of the urban heritage

The Central and Eastern region of Europe boasts a wealth and diversity
in the urban heritage that complements that of the Western region and
greatly extends the range of its influences: climatic, cultural, religious,
and historical.
Principal cities and their major monuments offer images and expe-
riences that are familiar, such as Budapest and its Parliament building,
Prague and the Charles Bridge, St Petersburg and the Winter Palace –
the latter one of the youngest cities in Europe, celebrating its

22 Journal of Architectural Conservation No 2 July 2003

JAC Vol 9/2 final 23/6/03 10:38 am Page 23

Approaches to Urban Conservation in Central and Eastern Europe

tercentenary in 2003. The capital cities of the post-1990 Baltic states

are less familiar, but equally rich: Tallinn with its walled historic core
and its extensive quarters of wooden housing; Riga with its merchants’
townhouses and swathe of art nouveau apartment blocks; Vilnius with
its university, many monasteries and churches, and riverside quarter.
Country towns also offer a wealth of tangible cultural heritage and
human traditions, from the historic cities of the Czech Republic with
their medieval, renaissance, and baroque inheritance – Cesky
Krumlov, Telc, Kutna Horá – to the lesser known Italianate ‘ideal city’
of Zamosc, close to Poland’s eastern border with the Ukraine, and
Plovdiv, Bulgaria, a city whose historical layers date back 4,000 years
and is vaunted today for its unrivalled collection of mid-nineteenth-
century, national revival style wooden townhouses.
Characteristic of the historic towns that escaped extensive damage
in the 1939–45 war (the vast majority) is their largely homogenous
urban layout and the unaltered consistency of the design and detailing
of buildings within given stylistic periods, with the vernacular domi-
nating over individual monuments or set-piece ensembles.
Characteristic also is the predominance of mixed uses in historic core
areas: housing intermingled with small shops, markets, workshops,
and commerce, and with the human culture and contact that goes
with it.1 It is the ‘minor’ or vernacular heritage that defines the socio-
economic culture of these towns as well as their urban landscape. To
the visitor from Western Europe, there is a sense of time warp from the
1950s or earlier, one that has both a romantic side and an inspirational
one. This is ‘raw urban heritage’, demanding to be treated differently
and more sympathetically than its westward neighbours.

Challenges in the post-socialist era

Although there is some overlap, challenges may be separated into
those that are specific to the region and those that are generic to his-
toric towns throughout Europe.
Specific to the Central and Eastern European region
These issues relate to ownership, responsibility, and what flows from
them.
Prior to 1990, almost all property in the socialist block was in state or
municipal ownership. Whereas state ownership is now rare, municipal
ownership remains common in many cities. At the same time, and in

Journal of Architectural Conservation No 2 July 2003 23

JAC Vol 9/2 final 23/6/03 10:38 am Page 24

Dennis Rodwell

accordance with differing state and municipal policy, there has been a
progressive transfer or shedding of responsibility into private hands.
For example, in historic cities in the Czech Republic, this has resulted
in the transfer of houses back to long-established resident families. In
Baltic state capitals, re-possession by the descendants of families that fled
their countries by 1940 – either for their own use or to realize their market
value – has often resulted in the re-housing elsewhere of resident families
of longstanding. In numerous cities, a prime example being Budapest,
individual apartments have been sold to their occupying tenants. In
specific cities, for example, Zamosc in Poland, houses have been sold only
to incoming investors. In certain historic areas, notably the Kazimierz
quarter of Cracow, there are particular difficulties in tracing heirs – with
concomitant stagnation and dereliction.
Whatever the precise situation, there are few traditions of private
responsibility in property ownership. Equally, the pre-1990 systems of
legal protection did not anticipate private initiative and were not adapted
to it. This is a major problem, one that has yet to be fully addressed. It is
exacerbated by political instabilities and lack of post-socialist experi-
ence in local government. Additionally, there are few traditions of public
lobbying, and none of non-governmental charitable organizations such
as the National or Civic Trusts.
During the socialist period there were few examples of proactive urban
conservation as opposed to the restoration of individual monuments.
Indeed, state management was focused on high-cost scientific restora-
tion or even re-construction of highly selected heritage assets, and urban
neighbourhoods were not esteemed in heritage terms.2 The established
technical, negotiating, and management skills base is narrow.
Following the initial euphoria of 1990, the economic conditions and
prospects across the region are generally difficult. Uncertainties have
focused much investment on quick return speculation which, in the
absence of adequate control mechanisms and enforcement, has proved
highly damaging to historic buildings and areas in some cities – such as
Prague and the Baltic State capitals – leading to much loss of cultural
integrity and authenticity. Generally, outside investors have proved
uneasy partners with the historic environment. In other cities, such as
Sibiu in Transylvania, the prospects of conventional private investment
from outside are recognized to be poor and other solutions have to be
sought.

24 Journal of Architectural Conservation No 2 July 2003

JAC Vol 9/2 final 23/6/03 10:38 am Page 25

Approaches to Urban Conservation in Central and Eastern Europe

Common to historic cities throughout Europe

It is symptomatic of the sense of time warp that, war damage apart, many
of the challenges facing historic city centres in Central and Eastern Europe
post-1990 are similar to those that were confronted in West European
cities after 1945. These include:
• a building stock that is generally in sound structural condition and
in use notwithstanding decades of neglect and a lack of modern
amenities;
• a housing offer that is traditionally strongly biased towards the
rental sector and where low rents and low incomes have discouraged
investment;
• inhabitants who are attracted to relocating to modern flats in large-
scale housing estates as the only perceived means of improving their
living standards and comforts;
• political priorities focused on economic reconstruction in which urban
rehabilitation is not seen as a priority and is not supported by a strong
lobby;
• an investment and development bias that favours non-residential uses
in city centres or, progressively over time, gentrification; and
• a shortage of professional and craft skills coupled with an absence of
cross-functional administrative structures and cross-disciplinary
working practices.

Common issues in Central and Eastern Europe today

The over-arching challenge is to develop sustainable strategies that place
urban conservation at the forefront of socio-economic regeneration and
therefore a political priority.3
The detailed challenges are numerous, multi-faceted, and need to be
tailored to each given situation. There is a common need to consolidate
operable legal frameworks, national and local institutional and admin-
istrative structures, and awareness of and skills in devising and then imple-
menting low-cost, minimum-intervention, place-specific solutions.
Common also are the need to maximize the resource value of what
exists; assess the future relationships between historic core areas and
their surrounding extensions and suburbs; and promote solutions for
regeneration and conservation in a general climate of low financial
means – whether of individual owners and tenants, local or central
governments. Much depends on stakeholder responsibility within

Journal of Architectural Conservation No 2 July 2003 25

JAC Vol 9/2 final 23/6/03 10:38 am Page 26

Dennis Rodwell

existing communities: inward investment rather than investment from

outside; the latter is either not forthcoming or is problematic. Much
depends also on promoting the concept of proactive urban conserva-
tion, persuading people that rehabilitation is an option, and developing
public participation and self-help.
One particular issue that is highlighted across the region is how to
achieve the repair, modernization, and then the long-term maintenance
of newly-privatized apartment blocks. Post-1990, the restitution to former
owners or the transfer and sale to sitting tenants was rarely accompa-
nied by legal provisions for the repair and maintenance of the shared struc-
ture and services, and this is a major concern. Related to this is the general
absence across the region of low-cost finance in the housing sector and
of related financial services.

Approaches and outcomes

What follows is a representative sample, but is by no means exhaustive:
Heritage as monuments
In Paris, in the 1960s, the initial secteur sauvegardé plan for the Marais
quarter envisaged a restoration programme that, if implemented, would
have taken the 300 or so historic hôtels out of normal community uses.4
This plan was later modified.
Since the 1950s, the same approach has been pursued with little modifi-
cation in Plovdiv, Bulgaria’s second city. The city boasts nearly 200 town
mansions dating from the mid-nineteenth century and built in the
national revival style, of which a significant proportion are derelict, under-
used, or in need of extensive programmes of conservation and mainte-
nance. The historic core is designated a cultural and tourist zone, and is
described as a ‘Reserve’ (Figure 1). To date, there has been a very limited
perception of appropriate uses for these townhouses, the over-riding
policy being to restore them and to apply ‘cultural’ uses that make them
accessible to the public as visitors, but detached from the daily life of
the city and all but a few of its citizens. Adaptation to other uses, even
their reversion to the residential uses for which they were constructed,
is not encouraged.
There are only so many art galleries, museums, libraries, and insti-
tutes that any city can support. The Reserve has taken on the aspect of
an open-air museum – with its associated complement of souvenir shops
and stalls – and the city is struggling to find uses for the many derelict

26 Journal of Architectural Conservation No 2 July 2003

JAC Vol 9/2 final 23/6/03 10:38 am Page 27

Approaches to Urban Conservation in Central and Eastern Europe

Figure 1 Plovdiv, Bulgaria.

Heritage as monuments.
The Geordiady House, in
the heart of the Reserve, was
built in 1848. It was restored
in the 1950s and now houses
the Museum of National
Revival. Plovdiv is not in the
World Heritage List.
(Dennis Rodwell)

houses. Given the weaknesses in the legal frameworks of protection and

an understandable reluctance to engage with private developers, this
approach does provide one route to preventing destructive interventions,
loss of integrity and authenticity. Fossilizing the heritage as a collection
of monuments is not, however, a sustainable solution: the survival of many
of its historic buildings and the long-term viability of the Plovdiv Reserve
will depend upon properly-controlled private investment.5

Reliance on tourism and outside investment

Founded in 1580, Zamosc was laid out and built by Bernardo Morando,
an architect originally from Padua. It is the epitome of an ideal renais-
sance city-fortress, complete with its princely residence, town hall, market
square, churches, and grid pattern of arcaded streets.
Post-1990, the future of the city was perceived in large measure to
depend on cultural tourism and investment from outside (Figure 2).
Remote of access and in one of the economically weakest parts of Poland,
the viability of such a vision has long been questioned. It would require
a balanced sub-regional cultural and recreational tourism strategy, a very

Journal of Architectural Conservation No 2 July 2003 27

JAC Vol 9/2 final 23/6/03 10:38 am Page 28

Dennis Rodwell

Figure 2 Zamosc, Poland. Reliance on investment from outside. The historic core
houses a population of 3,000, the number it was built for. Stakeholder interest by
local residents has not been supported by the city authorities. Zamosc was inscribed
as a World Heritage Site in 1992. (Dennis Rodwell)

significant level of investment in transport infrastructure, hotels and other

facilities, and even then it would need to out-place other more accessi-
ble and favoured destinations.
Unlike other Polish cities, stakeholder interest by local residents in
Zamosc was not encouraged and they were not allowed to buy their flats.
Whole tenements were sold by the municipality only to outside devel-
opers and investors. Gentrification of the city centre population was seen
as the way forward and existing residents were relocated to flats on the
city’s outskirts. Gentrification requires an economy that supports gentry;
Zamosc does not have such an economy.
Zamosc is a prime example of a city that needs to found its urban
conservation strategy on its existing human and material resources:
capacity building and evolution from the starting points of the local
community, economy, and heritage. Investing in local stakeholders,
people who belong to and care about the city, is vital.

28 Journal of Architectural Conservation No 2 July 2003

JAC Vol 9/2 final 23/6/03 10:38 am Page 29

Approaches to Urban Conservation in Central and Eastern Europe

Appearance over substance

Programmes such as ‘Beautiful Romania’ have been aimed at giving a
cosmetic uplift to historic cities – which in turn is aimed at attracting
tourist and investor interest – through the renewal of external finishes
to whole blocks and streets, whether they be roof finishes, external renders
and paintwork, hard and soft landscaping, or street lighting.
A particularly extensive annual programme of such works has taken
place in Vilnius, the Lithuanian capital. These were not accompanied
initially by other essential repair works and upgrading of services and
interiors, and may disguise apartment blocks that lack water, sewerage,
or electricity supplies. Also, the materials and skills employed were not
always those that are appropriate to historic buildings and the spaces
between them. This aspect is a recognized downside to a much broader
and highly ambitious programme of conservation sensitive urban regen-
eration that is described below.6

Housing
Housing is the dominant building use in historic cities throughout the
region and the most important issue to address in terms both of archi-
tectural and urban conservation. It is the use for which the majority of
the historic buildings – whether classified as monuments or forming part
of the vernacular – were constructed. Housing remains the use for which
the buildings, the urban grain, the associated social and economic struc-
tures, and overall environment, are all best suited.
Maintaining a balanced residential population in an historic city is also
essential in order to safeguard the viability of the many complementary
small-scale mixed uses and services, and the buildings or parts thereof
that they occupy. Continuity in small-scale mixed-use also serves best
to minimize the knock-on problems of transport, traffic, and parking
that arise in historic city areas where the land-use balance is dramati-
cally altered.7
Programmes of co-ordinated repair and modernization of tenements
and their individual flats are the essential corner-stone for maintaining
the residential function.
In Budapest, such programmes have been a political priority for many
years. Grants, loans, and expertise are made available by the municipal
authorities to groups of individual proprietors to enable conservation
repairs to be carried out to the structural envelope and other shared parts.
Programmes for the sensitive rehabilitation of individual apartments are

Journal of Architectural Conservation No 2 July 2003 29

JAC Vol 9/2 final 23/6/03 10:38 am Page 30

Dennis Rodwell

being developed; a shortage of professionals skilled in minimum inter-

vention and sensitive adaptation has been identified and efforts are being
made to address this.
In Hungary, there is a particularly well-organized tenants’ associa-
tion, founded in 1989, that has proved to be an effective lobby for the
interests of occupiers (whether tenants or owners) of tenement flats.
In Poland generally (Zamosc is something of an exception), housing
rehabilitation policy, practice, and funding mechanisms that were devel-
oped in France from the 1960s onwards have been introduced and proved
highly successful in certain cities. Funding mechanisms include under-
writing and subsidy agreements between municipalities and local banks,
directed at offering very low or interest-free loans to tenants to acquire
their properties and to support their contributions to conservation and
rehabilitation schemes. Achieving the effective management of the
housing stock and empowering a stakeholder society are principal aims
of this policy.8

The co-ordinated approach: Czech country towns

The World Heritage Cities of Cesky Krumlov, Telc, Kutna Horá have
established formidable track records in co-ordinated urban conservation
and may be considered exemplars in the field. Relative economic stabil-
ity, shared community objectives, and stakeholder responsibility result-
ing from the restitution of properties to families that have often been
established in their localities for several generations, coupled with free
access to information and initial professional advice, and financial incen-
tives in the form of grants or interest-free loans, have all contributed to
successful programmes of proactive urban conservation.
The Czech Republic operates a system of conservation ‘passports’ for
designated historic buildings that dates back several decades. These
passports provide a complete record – documentary, drawn, and photo-
graphic – of all interventions; they are centrally held and administered
as a public service. This system is exemplary.
Of note in these towns are the co-ordinated programmes of essential
service infrastructure renewal – underground water supply, drainage, and
electricity being undertaken all at one time – and environmental improve-
ments in the renewal of hard and soft landscaping in the spaces between
buildings.
Support is given to the retention of the historical diversity of comple-
mentary uses in the city centre. This includes encouraging building

30 Journal of Architectural Conservation No 2 July 2003

JAC Vol 9/2 final 23/6/03 10:38 am Page 31

Approaches to Urban Conservation in Central and Eastern Europe

Figure 3 Kutna Horá,

Czech Republic. The co-
ordinated approach. Mixed
use in the historic centre:
included in this street scene
are a small guesthouse and a
craftsman’s workshop with
flat over. Kutna Horá was
inscribed as a World
Heritage Site in 1995.
(Dennis Rodwell)

craftspeople to locate their workshops centrally – in contrast to the bias

against this in historic cities in the United Kingdom.9
There is considerable experience in, and a good understanding of, the
economics of tourism and of the distinction between sustainable and mass
tourism. In Kutna Horá, for example, the mayor recognized that day
visitors did not contribute substantially to the local economy, and that
for tourism to make a beneficial contribution cultural and recreational
facilities needed to be developed and promoted regionally; all with a view
to encouraging visitors to stay in local hotels and guest houses, eat in local
restaurants, purchase in local shops, and participate in a range of comple-
mentary activities (Figure 3). Cultural tourism, if taken in isolation, is
not seen as a useful concept.

The co-ordinated approach: Vilnius, Lithuania

In 1990, Tallinn, Riga, and Vilnius were propelled from the status of
regional centres in an empire to that of capital cities of sovereign states,
ones that lacked recent histories of independent legal systems and public
administration. Incoming investors were attracted by the prospects of

Journal of Architectural Conservation No 2 July 2003 31

JAC Vol 9/2 final 23/6/03 10:38 am Page 32

Dennis Rodwell

economic boom; at the same time, concerns about political stability

encouraged aggressive speculation and short-termism. In a climate where
there was no established protective legislation this led to losses in the
historic environment: some buildings were demolished for their site
redevelopment value, many others were gutted and reconstructed inside.
Vilnius was inscribed as a World Heritage Site in 1994. This served
to focus attention on the need to establish a framework within which
the ‘outstanding universal value’ of the site could be protected and
conserved.10
A revitalization strategy was prepared in 1995–96, with support from
the Lithuanian government, the municipality of Vilnius, UNESCO, the
World Bank, and a team of experts from Scandinavian countries and
from Edinburgh.11 This led, in 1998, to the establishment of the Vilnius
Old Town Renewal Agency (OTRA), an organization whose vision
and purpose are to establish an integrated approach to conservation-
sensitive urban renewal in the city, co-ordinating public and private
interests and initiatives (Figure 4).
OTRA is one of the few site-specific bodies that is dedicated to pro-
active urban conservation in a major city in Central and Eastern Europe.

Figure 4 Vilnius,
Lithuania. The co-ordinated
approach. The Old Town
Renewal Agency (OTRA)
was established to promote
and manage an integrated
approach to conservation-
sensitive urban renewal in
the city. Vilnius was
inscribed as a World
Heritage Site in 1994.
(Dennis Rodwell)

32 Journal of Architectural Conservation No 2 July 2003

JAC Vol 9/2 final 23/6/03 10:38 am Page 33

Approaches to Urban Conservation in Central and Eastern Europe

In its concept, as well as in its operation, it is perceived by the

International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration
of Cultural Property (ICCROM) in Rome, and others, as a management
model of importance not only for Vilnius but for other historic cities across
the region. Achieving not-for-profit status in 2001, and supported by both
national and municipal governments, it has established a multi-aspect
programme of action.12
Objectives and actions include: community and youth awareness and
involvement; arranging exhibitions and seminars; opening an informa-
tion centre; developing international co-operation; the establishment
of a database; the preparation of investment studies and the identifica-
tion of regeneration opportunities; negotiation and mediation between
different agencies and interests; simplifying the approval procedures for
conservation works and building permits; co-ordinating infrastructure
improvements and other revitalization works funded by the state and
the municipality; promoting and managing public sector financial support
to property owners in the Old Town; and contributing to the promotion
of Vilnius as a visitor destination.
OTRA has developed an impressive range of free publications, includ-
ing Conservation Guidelines, all aimed at establishing common-ownership
amongst the local community, business sector, developers, and other
interests in the implementation of a conservation-sensitive vision for
the city.13 ICOMOS-Lithuania (the Lithuanian National Committee of
the International Council on Monuments and Sites) has established a
monitoring programme for the World Heritage Site. Cultural events
organized by others are contributing to raising the profile of the city’s
tangible and intangible heritage.
Promoting joint-proprietor projects forms a major part of the OTRA
regeneration programme. A number of homeowners associations have
been formed and are being grant-aided in the renovation of their
tenements and associated courtyards.
Nevertheless, sustaining the traditional residential bias and social
balance in the city centre is proving a major challenge for OTRA.
Restitution to pre-Second World War owners has not helped to stabi-
lize the city centre population; rather it has contributed to several
changes: the substitution of established, but poor residents by incomers
of higher means and the unregulated change of use of formerly residen-
tial properties to commercial uses. Such changes have facilitated private
sector investment in the city centre, but not all of this has been applied

Journal of Architectural Conservation No 2 July 2003 33

JAC Vol 9/2 final 23/6/03 10:38 am Page 34

Dennis Rodwell

sympathetically to the historic environment. According to available

statistics, the historic core has – in numerical terms – lost more than a
third of its population since 1990 (from c.30,000 to c.18,500). Also, there
are aggravated and unresolved transport and traffic problems, one
panacea being a proposal to construct underground car parks under public
open space.
The challenges faced by OTRA are enormous. Concerns about the
integrity of the historic core and the absence of effective mechanisms and
instruments were expressed in the 1990s.14 Many of these concerns have
now been addressed, and the will to succeed and range of technical
support for the Agency, including from ICCROM, is impressive.
In a regional sense, the revitalization strategy for Vilnius is very much
based on a Western European approach to development, one in which
change is both a means and an end, in which outside investment is
welcomed rather too unquestioningly, and in which the concept of
sustainability is neither a driving force nor a stated core objective. This
approach may be relevant to certain short to medium term regeneration
objectives in a city such as Vilnius, which is host to much socio-economic
activity. However, it does not translate easily to historic cities where such
activity neither exists nor is in prospect.

The co-ordinated approach: Sibiu, Transylvania, Romania

Sibiu was founded by Saxon settlers in the twelfth century. It is also known
by the historical name of Hermannstadt and it retains strong cultural links
and ties with Germany. Historically the cultural, political, and religious
centre of Transylvania, its historic core is one of the largest in Romania:
over 100 ha in extent and with a resident population of 20,000. It has
an urban landscape that is dominated by its vernacular architecture rather
than its individual monuments, and takes pride in its continuous tradi-
tions of ethnic and functional diversity.
Sibiu is located in the heart of a region of limited economic activity
where the horse, bullock, and cart are the means of everyday conveyance
for the majority of the population. Unlike Vilnius, Sibiu is not inscribed
in the World Heritage List.
In 1998, an international conference was held in Sibiu under the
auspices of UNESCO and the Council of Europe; this identified threats
to the cultural heritage of the city, such as neglect and the absence of
coherent policies, and established the need to define and promote a
positive vision and a co-ordinated programme for conservation and

34 Journal of Architectural Conservation No 2 July 2003

JAC Vol 9/2 final 23/6/03 10:38 am Page 35

Approaches to Urban Conservation in Central and Eastern Europe

sustainable development. This conference focused local, national, and

international attention on the city and led, amongst other actions, to
the initiation of an urban rehabilitation programme led and financed by
the German Agency for Technical Cooperation, GTZ. From the outset,
this programme has been based on a place-specific, ‘bottom-up’ approach
to the rehabilitation of the historic core (Figure 5).
At an early stage of this Romanian–German Cooperation project, a
comprehensive study was undertaken of the housing conditions, the social
composition, and views of the inhabitants of the historic centre. This
established, for example, that 60 per cent of the housing was owner-
occupied, over 50 per cent lacked basic amenities or was in a poor state
of repair – with a significant proportion of residents sharing either toilets,
bathrooms, or kitchens – but that 85 per cent of the residents would prefer
that their dwelling was improved rather than move out. Space standards
were low by Western European standards, a high proportion of residents
were in the low or very low income brackets, and there was a bias towards
the elderly and the retired compared to the overall city population – all
of which reflects experience elsewhere. Nevertheless, an important

Figure 5 Sibiu,
Transylvania, Romania.
The co-ordinated approach.
The Romanian–German
Cooperation project is an
exemplar for integrated
urban conservation and
sustainable revitalization
that maximizes the resource
value of the historic
environment within the local
community. Sibiu is not in
the World Heritage List.
(Dennis Rodwell)

Journal of Architectural Conservation No 2 July 2003 35

JAC Vol 9/2 final 23/6/03 10:38 am Page 36

Dennis Rodwell

finding was of a strong self-help ethic amongst owners and tenants, who
had both the experience and the willingness to carry out repair and
renovation works themselves.15
The conclusions of this and other wide-ranging studies were consoli-
dated into the Charter for the Rehabilitation of the Historic Center of
Sibiu/Hermannstadt, published as a consultative draft in March 2000 and
finalized in October 2000. This Charter argues that conserving both the
tangible heritage and the living character of historic Sibiu are funda-
mental to preserving its identity for future generations and to securing a
sustainable future for it.16
The Charter’s objectives and priorities cover a full range of topics and
issues: from service infrastructure and housing; through cultural tourism
and retail; to townscape, open spaces, and traffic. The key mechanisms
for achieving this are a strategy and action plan (the present one covers
the period 2001 to 2004; the GTZ programme will continue until at least
2008) that defines and establishes roles, tasks and the funding to be
provided from local, regional, and national funds, statutory undertak-
ers, and from international contributions.17
The long-term aim of the GTZ project is build local capacity for urban
rehabilitation: the people, the institutions, the tools, and the finance.
Unlike in Vilnius and other cities mentioned in this paper, attracting a
significant level of outside private sector investment is not a primary
objective of the strategy nor does it depend on it: activating and making
best use of available resources within the local to national community
is. In the context of Sibiu, this is both realistic and wise. Other cities would
do well to take note of it.
GTZ, through its local office in the heart of the historic centre,
contributes to and manages a grant-aid budget for local residents to carry
out external and internal conservation works and upgrade their houses
or flats. Additionally, it manages and funds the provision of initial free
professional counselling and the publication of technical advice leaflets
advising of best conservation practice. Priority is attached to holistic
understanding of the historical evolution and of the environmental
performance of buildings.
Importantly for the architectural conservationist, both philosophically
and practically, GTZ advocates and supports the local residents in achiev-
ing a careful, gradual, and economical approach to rehabilitation, one
that respects significance and historical layers. In this respect, as in others,
notwithstanding that Sibiu is not a World Heritage Site, the Sibiu project

36 Journal of Architectural Conservation No 2 July 2003

JAC Vol 9/2 final 23/6/03 10:38 am Page 37

Approaches to Urban Conservation in Central and Eastern Europe

allies itself more closely to the operational expectations of the World

Heritage Convention than many sites that are.18 Grant-aid calculations
(based in principle on a ceiling of 50 per cent) take into account contri-
butions in kind by owners and tenants who carry out works themselves,
essential in an area of predominantly low-income households who would
not otherwise be able to afford to have works carried out. Importantly
also in an historic core where the vernacular predominates, no distinc-
tions are drawn between whether individual buildings are listed as
monuments or not.
Other key actions include: support in the training of local professional
and craft skills and, as in the Czech country towns, the setting-up of small-
scale workshops in the city centre, complete with associated residential
accommodation. Sustaining diversity through the vertical mix of
functions in buildings is an important strategic objective. As in Budapest,
a shortage of minimum intervention adaptive skills has been remarked
upon amongst professionals, and a programme of seminars and workshops
is being devised to remedy this.
In this author’s view, the urban conservation and sustainable devel-
opment project in Sibiu is more generally relevant to the socio-economic
situation in Central and Eastern Europe than its equivalent in Vilnius.
It offers insight into how the resource value of our cultural heritage can
drive urban conservation in situations where exploitation of it for its
development value is either not possible or not desired. It is a very impor-
tant initiative, one that merits place-specific translation into other
historic cities both in Romania and across Europe.

Responsibilities and opportunities

The revitalization of historic cities in Central and Eastern Europe is one
of the major urban conservation challenges of our time. It invites new
approaches to identifying and resolving, in a coherent manner, the many
interrelated social, environmental, and economic issues. In short, it
presents the opportunity for the architectural conservation interest to
unite with the sustainability agendas of our time to provide a mutually
supportive driving force of profound strength.
It is the resource value of the historic environment in Central and
Eastern Europe that carried it through the second half of the twentieth
century, a value that is not selective according to ‘special interest’. It
is that essential resource value, independent of its money-making

Journal of Architectural Conservation No 2 July 2003 37

JAC Vol 9/2 final 23/6/03 10:38 am Page 38

Dennis Rodwell

development value, that is prized today in a city such as Sibiu – one that
epitomizes the generality of the social, environmental, and economic
issues that need to be addressed in the eastern half of Europe.
The shortage of skills amongst professionals, referred to above in the
context of Budapest and Sibiu, is not exclusive to those cities or in indeed
to Central and Eastern Europe. Today, in the United Kingdom, new build-
ing accounts for only around one per cent annually relative to the exist-
ing building stock, and 30 per cent of all planning applications concern
the historic environment in some way. In this author’s view, working with
best conservation practice, together with learning optimum use,
minimum intervention upgrading and adaptive skills, should form part
of the core training of all architects and related professionals and not be
an add-on specialism. Across the whole of Europe, the level of intellec-
tual awareness and practical skills in these areas is appallingly low.

Conclusion
The holistic approach that can be seen in several of the examples of
Central and Eastern European practice offers an important point of
reference in the ongoing debate and review in the United Kingdom of
the definition of the historic environment and its relevance to people
today and of most appropriate future protection mechanisms for
individual buildings and historic areas. The examples show the effec-
tiveness of partnerships beyond the heritage lobby, and the importance
of communicating and working with local communities, even in places
with major socio-economic difficulties. They also demonstrate that
common-ownership of a conservation and sustainability led philosophy
and implementation are not limited by location or socio-economic status.
In short, where the will exists, there is no limit to what the combination
of conservation and sustainability can achieve in the field of the protec-
tion and rehabilitation of historic cities and areas.

38 Journal of Architectural Conservation No 2 July 2003

JAC Vol 9/2 final 23/6/03 10:38 am Page 39

Approaches to Urban Conservation in Central and Eastern Europe

Biography
Dennis Rodwell MA, DipArch(Cantab), DipFrench(Open), RIBA, FRIAS, FSA
Scot, FRSA, IHBC
Dennis Rodwell is based in south-east Scotland. He practices as a consultant
architect–planner working internationally in the field of cultural heritage, focus-
ing primarily on building conservation and urban rehabilitation. The author of
numerous articles and papers concerning heritage matters, including compara-
tive studies of conservation policy and practice in Western Europe, he has under-
taken missions on behalf of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre to Central
and Eastern Europe aimed at achieving best practice in the management of
historic cities and the conservation of historic buildings, work that he is devel-
oping through the UNESCO Division of Cultural Heritage. Recent missions
have included the island of Lopud, Croatia, and the Bolshoi Theatre, Moscow.
Previously in practice in Edinburgh as a consultant architect specializing in the
restoration of historic buildings and the rehabilitation of housing, mostly in
historic city areas, he was until early 2003 conservation officer and urban designer
to the city of Derby, England. The views expressed in this paper are those of
the author.

Notes
1 An overview of the general context is given in Samol, F., ‘Urban Rehabilitation in
Central and Eastern Europe’, a paper prepared for the International Symposium on
the Rehabilitation of Historic Cities in Eastern and South Eastern Europe, Sibiu,
Romania, 10–12 October 2002.
2 Pickard, R., ‘Sustainable Approaches to the Management of Cultural-Historic
Centres: Assessment of Urban Values, the Integration of Heritage Protection into
Planning Mechanisms, the Reform of Legislation and Administration, and
Economic and Financial Considerations’ in: UNESCO, Management of Private
Property in the Historic City-Centres of the European Cities-in-Transition, proceedings
of UNESCO international seminar, Bucharest, April 2001, UNESCO, Paris
(2002), pp. 89–112.
3 Rodwell, D., ‘Sustainability and the Holistic Approach to the Conservation of
Historic Cities’, Journal of Architectural Conservation, Vol 9, No 1, March 2003,
pp. 58–73.
4 Sorlin, F., ‘Paris’ in: The Conservation of Georgian Edinburgh, Edinburgh University
Press, Edinburgh (1972); Rodwell, D., ‘The French Connection: The Significance
for Edinburgh of Conservation policies in the Marais, Paris’ in: Civilising the City:
Quality or Chaos in Historic Towns, Nic Allen, Edinburgh (1990).
5 Rodwell, D., The Conservation of Monuments in the ‘Ancient Plovdiv Reserve’, Plovdiv,
Bulgaria, Mission Report, UNESCO, Division of Cultural Heritage (2002).
6 Raugeliene, J., ‘The Revitalisation of Vilnius Old Town’ in: UNESCO,
Management of Private Property in the Historic City-Centres of the European Cities-in-
Transition, proceedings of UNESCO international seminar, Bucharest, April 2001,
UNESCO, Paris (2002), pp. 115–124.
7 Pickard, op. cit. (2002).

Journal of Architectural Conservation No 2 July 2003 39

JAC Vol 9/2 final 23/6/03 10:38 am Page 40

Dennis Rodwell

8 Czyzewska, A., ‘The Condominium Association Loan Programme in Sopot,

Poland’ in: UNESCO, Management of Private Property in the Historic City-Centres of
the European Cities-in-Transition, proceedings of UNESCO international seminar,
Bucharest, April 2001, UNESCO, Paris (2002), pp. 35–38. The general framework
upon which the French experience has been insinuated into the Polish system is
set out in Skalski, K., O budowie systemu rewitalizacji dawnych dzielnic miejskich
(Constitution d’un système de réhabilitation d’anciens quartiers urbains; aspects struc-
turels sur la base de l’expérience française), Krakowski Instytut Nieruchomosci,
Cracow (1996).
9 Rodwell, op. cit. (2003), pp. 58–73; Simpson, J., ‘Whither Conservation?’ in:
Harrison, P. (Ed.), Civilising the City: Quality or Chaos in Historic Towns, Nic Allen,
Edinburgh (1990), pp. 19–25.
10 Rodwell, D., ‘The World Heritage Convention and the Exemplary Management of
Complex Heritage Sites’, Journal of Architectural Conservation, Vol 8, No 3,
November 2002, pp. 40–60.
11 Vilnius and Edinburgh are twinned cities. Expertise from Edinburgh was focused
through the Edinburgh Old Town Renewal Trust and its successive directors Jim
Johnson and Kirsteen Thomson.
12 Vilnius Old Town Renewal Agency, Vilnius Old Town Revitalisation Strategy
Implementation: Co-operation, Results, Vision, OTRA, Vilnius (2001); Raugeliene,
op. cit. (2002).
13 Vilnius Old Town Renewal Agency with Thomson, K., Conservation Guidelines,
OTRA, Vilnius (2001). ‘Authenticity’, a key concept in relation to the imple-
mentation of the World Heritage Convention, is a term that is used in this docu-
ment, but with a definition that is somewhat woolly and an application that is
ambiguous. See also Rodwell, op. cit. (2002), pp. 40–60.
14 For example, in: Rodwell, D., The Revitalisation of World Heritage Cities in Central
and Eastern Europe, Mission Report, UNESCO, World Heritage Centre, 1999;
Rodwell, D., The Revitalisation of Vilnius Old Town, Lithuania, Mission Report,
UNESCO, World Heritage Centre (1999).
15 Nistor, S., ‘Romania’s Heritage: between Neglect and Revitalization. Bridging the
Gap towards Sustainable Management of Historic Properties. The Role of
International Co-operation’ in: UNESCO, Management of Private Property in the
Historic City-Centres of the European Cities-in-Transition, proceedings of UNESCO
international seminar, Bucharest, April 2001, UNESCO, Paris (2002), pp. 77–87.
16 German Agency for Technical Cooperation, Charter for the Rehabilitation of the
Historic Center of Sibiu/Hermannstadt, GTZ, Sibiu (second edition, October 2000).
17 German Agency for Technical Cooperation, Kommunales Aktionsprogramm: Sibiu
2001–2004, GTZ, Sibiu (2001).
18 Rodwell, op. cit. (2002), pp. 40–60.

40 Journal of Architectural Conservation No 2 July 2003