Valuating Urban Heritage in A Development Perspective - Elisabetta Pietrostefani

Sciences Po PSIA – Paris School of International Affairs
Master in International Development
VALUATING URBAN HERITAGE in a DEVELOPMENT

PERSPECTIVE
The roles of designation and appropriation for heritage policy design in
Lebanon
Elisabetta Pietrostefani
Master’s thesis supervised by Vincent Geronimi, Senior Lecturer at
the University Versailles-St Quentin and Sciences Po.
Academic Year 2013/2014
The copyright of this Master's thesis remains the property of its author. No part of the
content may be reproduced, published, distributed, copied or stored for public or private
use without written permission of the author. All authorisation requests should be sent to
vanessa.scherrer@sciencespo.fr
Elisabetta Pietrostefani Sciences Po – PSIA
Valuating Urban Heritage in a Development Perspective 2013-2014
Abstract
For development policies, cultural heritage is seen as an asset on account of its

historic, cultural and socio-economic significance in contemporary society, particularly in
relation to the identity of cities and their economies. The World Bank, the French
Development Agency and the EU have in fact executed international aid projects
integrating urban heritage to their development strategies. These projects are
particularly relevant in light of the changing nature of urban areas presenting high risks
for heritage because of urban growth. In developing countries, however, urban heritage
is often an under-employed and under-protected asset. Lebanon presents such an
example, where urban heritage is in particular danger despite previous urban heritage
and development projects such as the World Bank’s Cultural Heritage and Development
Project (CHUD). This thesis has adopted Lebanon as a case study to illustrate urban
heritage valuation as the first essential step for the design of effective urban heritage
policies or renovation projects aiming for local development. This study adopted the
Vernières (2012) grid because of its unified and holistic approach to urban heritage in
order to illustrate the importance of considering context not only for the development
of successful urban heritage projects but for the effective valuation of urban heritage
itself.
2
To Matilda Olivia
3
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my deepest thanks to Maria Mounzer and Dr. Georges
Zouain from GAIA-Heritage for their advice and support during my stay in Lebanon as
well their valuable contacts that enabled me to further my research. I would also like to
thank CEMOTEV for giving me the opportunity to spend four months in Lebanon while
preparing a project proposal for the French Development Agency; a particular thank you
to Dr. Vincent Geronimi for his guidance. My warmest regards to Raja Noujaim for
sharing his precious knowledge on Lebanese urban heritage. I would also like to thank
Sarrah El Moumouhi for the translations, Virginia Rounding for her advice, the
interviewees for their guidance and my Lebanese friends in particular for their support.
4
List of Abbreviation
AFD French Development Agency

AFED Arab Forum for Environment and Development
ALPES Association Libanaise pour L’Economie Sociale (Lebanese Association
for Social Economy)
APSAD Association pour la Protection des Sites et Anciennes Demeures
(Association for the Protection of Sites and Ancient Dwellings)
APLH (or APPL) Association for the Protection of Lebanese Heritage (Association pour
la Protection du Patrimoine Libanais)
AUB American University Beirut
CEMOTEV Centre d'études sur la mondialisation, les conflits, les territoires et les
vulnérabilités (Study centre on globalisation, conflict, territories and
vulnerabilities)
CERMOC Centre d’Etudes et de Recherche sur le Moyen Orient (Study and
research centre on the Middle East)
CHUD Cultural Heritage and Urban Development (World Bank Project)
DGU Direction Général de l’Urbanisme (General Direction of Urbanism)
DGA Direction Général des Antiquités (General Direction of Antiquities)
ICOMOS International Council of Monuments and Sites
IDB Inter-American Development Bank
IdF Ile-de-France
MENA Middle-East and North Africa
PUCA Plan Urbanisme Construction Architecture
TEV Total Economic Value
WB World Bank
WH World Heritage
WHC World Heritage Convention
WHL World Heritage List
WHS World Heritage Site(s)
UCLG United Cities and Local Governments
UNDP United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
5
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 8
METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH DESIGN ..................................................................................... 14
CHAPTER 1 – APPLYING THEORY & LITERATURE..................................................................... 20

1.1 DEFINING URBAN HERITAGE & DEVELOPMENT .............................................................. 20
1.1.1 FROM THEORY TO POLICY .......................................................................................................................... 20
1.1.2 THE ROLE OF URBAN HERITAGE IN DEVELOPMENT................................................................................ 29
1.2 ECONOMIC VALUATION OF URBAN HERITAGE................................................................. 38
1.2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL VALUATION: TRANSPOSING IT TO HERITAGE......................................................... 38
1.2.2 THE VERNIÈRES (2012) GRID ............................................................................................................ 48
CHAPTER 2 - URBAN HERITAGE IN LEBANON ............................................................................. 58

2.1 THE FAILURE OF HERITAGE POLICIES IN LEBANON ....................................................................... 58
2.1.1 A SHORT HISTORY ...................................................................................................................................... 58
2.1.2 URBAN HERITAGE POLICY AND REGULATION IN LEBANON ................................................................. 62
2.2 APPROPRIATION THROUGH CIVIL SOCIETY .................................................................................... 76
2.2.1 IS LEBANON APPROPRIATING ITS URBAN HERITAGE?........................................................................... 76
2.2.2 TWO EXAMPLES: SAVE BEIRUT HERITAGE & ASSOCIATION FOR THE PROTECTION OF LEBANESE
HERITAGE (APLH OR APPL) ................................................................................................................................... 80
2.2.3 A SECTARIAN SOCIETY: AN INEVITABLE QUESTION OF IDENTITY? ...................................................... 82
2.3 URBAN HERITAGE AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN LEBANON .................................................. 83
2.3.1 CULTURAL HERITAGE AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (CHUD)............................................................. 83
CHAPTER 3 – ILLUSTRATING THE VERNIÈRES (2012) GRID IN LEBANON ....................... 87

3.1.1 ANALYSIS IN TERMS OF STOCK.................................................................................................... 87
3.1.2 THE TERRITORIAL FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................................... 87
3.1.2 THE DIFFERENT DIMENSIONS OF STOCK (ECONOMIC, CULTURAL, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL) ...... 92
3.2 THE SUSTAINABILITY DIAGRAM (INVESTMENT AND DEPRECIATION) .......................................102
3.2.1 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SUSTAINABILITY DIAGRAM...................................................................... 102
3.2.2 RISK EFFECTS AND THE EFFECTS OF REHABILITATION ...................................................................... 106
3.2.2 THE FOUAD BOUTROS AND THE ‘LIAISON DOUCE’ PROJECTS ........................................................... 107
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................114
BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................................119
APPENDICES ..........................................................................................................................................126
6
List of Figures
Diagram 1 – Survey respondents’ summary statistics p.8-9

Diagram 2 – Cultural Heritage: A resource for society
Diagram 3 – World Bank loans for conservation or revalorisation cultural heritage or historic city
projects
Diagram 4a & b – Illustrating economic and intrinsic values (1) & (2)
Diagram 5 – Total Economic Value of Urban Heritage
Diagram 6 – Constitutive elements of the Vernières (2012) analysis grid
Diagram 7 – Sustainability diagram of urban heritage
Diagram 8a – Theoretical example of sustainable heritage (by accumulation)
Diagram 8b – Theoretical example of unsustainable heritage
Diagram 9 – Rule of Law
Diagram 10 – The ideal approach for urban heritage regeneration projects
Diagram 11 – Institutions related to Urban Heritage in Lebanon
Diagram 12 – Indicators of the condition of urban heritage: its social dimensions and governance
in Lebanon
Diagram 13 – Survey respondents’ impressions of urban heritage degradation
Diagram 14 – Survey respondents’ impressions of appropriation in Lebanon
Diagram 15 – Survey respondents’ impressions on the adaptive re-use of urban heritage
Diagram 16 – Sustainability of Beirut
Diagram 17 – Sustainability of Mar Mikhael, Beirut
Diagram 18 – Sustainability of Saïda
Diagram 19 – Sustainability diagram of Mar Mikhael with Fouad Boutros project
Diagram 20 – Sustainability diagram Damascus Road with Liaison Douce project
Table 1 – Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape (10th November 2011)

35th Session
Table 2 – Historic Centres inscribed on the World Heritage List in the MENA Region
Table 3 – Lebanese World Heritage Sites
Table 4 – Lebanese World Heritage Tentative List
Table 5a & b – Illustration of use-values in Lebanon (Mar Mikhael – Beirut & Saïda)
Table 6 – Indicators of the condition of urban heritage in its four dimensions
Table 7 – Investment and Degradation indicators in Lebanon
Table 8 – Economic Lebanon
Table 9 – Indicators of the condition of urban heritage: its social dimensions and governance in
Lebanon
Table 10 – Associations and heritage related NGOs in Lebanon
Table 11 – Indications of the depreciation of cultural stock
Table 12 – Survey respondents’ examples of destroyed buildings
Table 13 – Consequence of Fouad-Boutros Project
Table 14 – Objectives of Liaison Douce Project
Table 15 – Reflection Context+
Map 1 – Beirut Constituencies

Map 2 – Mar Mikhael and Damascus Road
Map 3 – Saïda
Map 4 – Commercial services of Mar Mikhael
Map 6 – Fouad Boutros Highway plan
Map 7 – Liaison Douce plan
7
INTRODUCTION
‘There can be no full ownership, no full participation of development
strategies without the full integration of culture’, Irina Bokova, Director-
General of UNESCO, (Hangzhou International Congress China, 2013).
‘Malmené par la guerre, le patrimoine paraît dangereusement exposé à

l’heure de la reconstruction, quoique de nombreuses associations, des
groupes de pression et des personnalités influents cherchent à sensibiliser
l’opinion aux multiples dangers qui se présentent, si l’éradication continue’
(Akl & Davie, 1999).1
In the last decade cultural heritage has been redefined as an asset. For
development policies, cultural heritage is seen as an asset on account of its historic,
cultural and socio-economic significance in contemporary society, particularly in relation
to the identity of cities and their economies (Licciardi & Amirtahmasebi, 2012;
Serageldin, 1999).
It is not only heritage, but culture itself that has received growing recognition as
an instrument of development. The Hangzhuo Declaration of 17th May 2013 placed
culture at the heart of sustainable development policies, designating it as an enabler and
driver for development and highlighting its key role as an accelerator of the Millennium
Development Goals (Hangzhou International Congress China, 2013).2 The World Bank,
the European Union and the French Cultural Agency have been using heritage for
sustainable development due to its potential role in contributing to the economic
revitalisation of historic urban centres in developing countries, achieving their objectives
through the cultural-related economy, the improvement of infrastructure or cultural
tourism (Licciardi & Amirtahmasebi, 2012; Vernières et al., 2012). These international
organisms haven been using cultural heritage as a vector for economic development,
while remaining intent on preserving and highlighting of the identity of their chosen
areas (Hackenberg, 2002).
In fact, the World Bank averred that it could not conceive of development
without cultural continuity, signing a Memorandum of Understanding in 2011 with
UNESCO which set out a global strategy for the revitalisation of heritage through the use
1
Translation by the author: ‘Ruined by war, heritage seems dangerously exposed at the time of
reconstruction, despite the numerous associations, pressure groups and influential personalities that
attempt to raise awareness to the multiple dangers that will present themselves, if eradication continues.’
2
The Hangzhou International Congress was attended by the G-77, China, the European Union and the
Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC).
8
of sustainable development principles (UNESCOPRESS, 2011). In 2009, the World Bank

established a regional strategy using the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) as a
model region focusing on the revitalisation of historical cities to support economic
development (Licciardi & Amirtahmasebi, 2011).3 This was the first regional strategy to
draw attention to the importance of cultural heritage for sustainable development on
account of its significance for local populations and economies (Labadi & Long, 2010, p.
209).
These projects are particularly relevant in light of the changing nature of many
urban areas presenting high risks for heritage because of urban growth, and at the same
time they address fertile areas for the development of social dynamics and economic
activities, urban heritage being the category of heritage that is most directly concerned
with everyone’s environment (Choay, 1992). Cities are experiencing continual growth,
they now representing three quarters of the world’s population. The MENA region, for
example, has one of the world’s most rapidly expanding populations with an average
growth rate of 2.1% per annum from 1990-2003 primarily in cities; 87% of Lebanon’s
population lives in urban areas (Licciardi & Amirtahmasebi, 2012; UN-Habitat, 2011).
The growing importance of culture as an instrument of development has radically
changed the value placed on heritage, and in most developed countries, conservation
policy is now established as a key element of urban development strategies (Pendlebury,
2009).4 In moderately developed or developing countries, however, urban heritage is
often an under-employed asset and the desirability of conserving and enhancing the
historic environment is not universally accepted (Ashworth & Tunbridge, 1996;
Lowenthal, 1985). Even though ‘no antagonism should remain between cultural heritage
and development’, heritage preservation often lacks preconditions and is addressed
principally by international stakeholders, rather than local ones (Lindblom & Paludan-
Müller, 2012, p. 6).5
The very nature of cultural heritage falls within an inclusive framework of
development. Described by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) as
3
The World Bank Strategy was entitled ‘Cultural Heritage and Development: A Framework for Action in the
Middle East and North Africa’.
4
The term conservation is here defined as the processes of looking after a place so as to retain its cultural
significance (ICOMOS, 1999).
5
‘Harnessing the Hidden Potential of Cities’, Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage Research and World
th
Bank workshop in Oslo (Norway), 11-12 April 2012
9
‘human development’ and giving priority to employment, education, health and

development by the population; development becomes a variable process according to
which country it occurs in (Vernières, 2011; UNDP, 2013). Such a definition of
development takes the relationship between cultural heritage and development beyond
the economic use values of heritage, such as revenues and tourism, and inscribes it is a
sustainable approach which implicates heritage’s non-use values such as its social,
cultural and environmental dimensions.
Following this definition and placing itself in the framework of the sustainable
development established by the Bruntland Report (1987), namely economic growth,
social inclusion and environmental balance, this paper will base its reflection on the
Vernières (2012) grid: a recent valuation method first applied in a French Development
Agency research project. The Vernières grid takes a unified and holistic approach to
urban heritage and its adoption will enable this thesis to address all of urban heritage’s
values: economic, social, environmental and cultural (Vernières et al., 2012). This
research thus wishes to place itself between three international concerns: the
establishment of development policies and programmes centred in cultural heritage; the
threat to, and yet possibilities derived from, urban heritage in today’s growing cities; and
the elaboration of tools to enable the policies and programmes established for heritage
and development to be effective.
The valuation of urban heritage is not necessarily the same as the economic
valuation of an urban heritage renovation project (Vernières et al., 2012, p. 6). Although
these two dimension are intricately related: economic valuation of heritage delimits the
nature and economic condition of a given heritage while a project evaluation should
result in a ranking of this project in terms of other alternative uses of a given heritage
(Navrud & Ready, 2002). This thesis will illustrate the application of the former for it is
the first essential step in order to evaluate renovation projects (Vernières et al., 2012, p.
6). Valuation of urban heritage is necessary in order to establish best recommendations
for the design of a given policy or programme and heritage and development projects
are a pertinent development entry point in low-income countries (EFTEC, 2005; Ost,
2009; Choay, 1992).
However, the carrying out of an effective valuation of urban heritage raises a few
10
questions: are the theoretical models of heritage valuation (from which policy
recommendations are drawn) universal and thus applicable regardless of the country
context? Or do new theoretical models for heritage valuation need to be created for
each new country and context? The locus for this enquiry will be Lebanon. Its
characteristics as a moderately developed country where urban heritage is in particular
danger despite previous urban heritage and development projects such as the World
Bank’s Cultural Heritage and Development Project (CHUD) validate its consideration as a
case study that would benefit from urban heritage development projects (World Bank,
2001).
The built environment of Lebanon is rapidly changing. This transformation is
destroying much of the country’s architectural fabric, principally in Beirut but in
secondary cities as well. Destruction and degradation of heritage occurred during the
civil war, with 10% of Beirut destroyed (Tabet, 2001). Degradation of urban heritage
continued with the recurrent construction of new urban forms: real-estate promoters
able to operate with impunity have led to the disappearance of many buildings with high
heritage value (Akl & Davie, 1999). Short-term urban economic profits are not taking
into account the potential long-term economic value of urban heritage that would be
much greater if developed correctly. Buildings that survived the war ironically did not
survive the reconstruction (Sharp, 2010). Urban heritage was also damaged in the south
of the country during the conflicts with Israel.
The Lebanese example amply demonstrates that the case of cultural heritage
preservation for development cannot be adequately addressed as an isolated activity
separated from local socio-economic needs and realities, and broader development
policies (Nijkamp in Licciardi & Amirtahmasebi, 2012). It also presents a case of post-
conflict heritage with many more instances of direct destruction than of neglect, setting
a complex context for heritage and development policy or project successes, and a local
conflict between the economic goals of heritage and its cultural, social and
environmental ones (Lindblom & Paludan-Müller, 2012).
11
A four-month research period in Lebanon highlighted the primacy of context.6

Lebanon’s past civil war, the sectarianism of its society, the endangered economy relying
on real estate and the complex local and international political situation with the
neighbouring war in Syria are all elements that would impact an urban heritage policy or
project, affecting the light in which any ex-ante valuation should be carried out because
of the context’s modification of heritage values. My research continually exposed the
lack of local tailoring of development projects, the limited use of local expertise and
knowledge and the problematic governance surrounding urban construction generally:
all fundamentals which have been recognised as crucial for development solutions and
the inadequacy of which implies an extensive waste of funds (World Bank, 1999)
(Interview A).
Despite these difficulties, Lebanon pressingly requires a valuation of its rapidly
degrading cultural heritage, if any of it is to be saved and valorised as an asset for the
development of the country. Urban heritage is not without value in Lebanon and should
be used both directly for economic profitability and indirectly through identity and
memory safeguarding. As argued by Lindblom & Paludan-Müller (2012, p. 96), however,
in order to be effective, regeneration projects need to insert themselves into a tri-partite
approach comprising policy, civil society mobilisation and physical interventions. Since
these three elements are not necessarily established in Lebanon, context and socio-
economic situation must be considered in order to find solutions of how to overcome
these elements to establish effective urban regeneration plans. This leads us to the
question: in the analysis of local regulation/designation and appropriation of urban
heritage, what role does contextualisation play for the usefulness of the valuation of
urban heritage for heritage policy design?
This question is being asked in light of the limited consideration of context in
previous urban heritage valuation methodologies, which has in turn led to the limited
6
I contributed to the preparation of a project proposal for the ‘Economic valuation of the urban heritage
of three secondary Lebanese cities: Tyr, Saida and El-Mina/Tripoli’ for the French Development Agency
(AFD) for CEMOTEV and their Lebanese partners ALPES and GAIA-Heritage.
 CEMOTEV (Centre d'études sur la mondialisation, les conflits, les territoires et les vulnérabilités),
st
2014. Accessed on 1 February 2014: http://www.cemotev.uvsq.fr/
 ALPES (Association Libanaise pour l’Economie Sociale), 2014. Accessed on 1 February 2014:
st
http://alpeslebanon.org/
 GAIA-Heritage, 2014. Accessed on 1 February 2014: http://www.gaiaheritage.com/
st
12
usefulness of valuations and consequently inadequate recommendations for project or

policy implementation (Interview M). By asking this question, this thesis seeks to
contribute to reflections concerning future urban valuation schemes in Lebanon and
elsewhere, by underlining the importance of integrating local context, not only in urban
heritage project methodologies but also in preceding steps such as valuation
methodologies themselves. This analysis leads to further questions, such as: can the
preservation of urban fabric be recognized as intrinsic to economic development or will
real-estate pressure continue to dominate as the economically profitable solution? And
therefore to what extent do locals and local experts consider urban heritage
preservation projects to be an answer to the development of their country?
This thesis will first discuss definitions of urban heritage and development and
review urban heritage values through an analysis of the Vernières (2012) model while
introducing a Lebanese perspective. It will then address the current designation and
appropriation of urban heritage in Lebanon, considering the lack of legislation, failure of
heritage policies, and attempts at alternative measures of preservation in order to
provide the context that will modify perspectives for urban heritage valuation
methodologies. Finally it will provide an illustration of Vernières’ valuation grid in
Lebanon. This last chapter will suggest elements of adaptation of Vernières’ (2012)
valuation methodology in light of the Lebanese context in order to obtain
recommendations for future urban heritage preservation projects that will result in
effective development. It will illustrate this analysis by presenting the possible effects of
two opposing urban projects yet to occur in Beirut: the Fouad Boutros Highway and
Liaison Douce project by the Ile-de-France in Beirut.
This thesis will argue that the valuation of urban heritage is useful for policy or
project design if and only if context is involved as much in the establishment of the
methodology of valuation as in its application. Valuation must therefore determine
both contextual pre-conditions (legal and civil society) and local urban heritage
conditions (stock, flow and degradation/regeneration) in order to produce effective
urban heritage preservation projects and policies that will generate local development.
13
METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH DESIGN
The research design for this thesis is a direct consequence of both heritage and
economic valuation literature reviews. It is based on the Total Economic Value (TEV)
methodology first adapted to heritage by Serageldin (1999), which was adopted because
of its consideration of both use and non-use values of heritage, integrating both
quantitative and qualitative methods in order to carry out a comprehensive valuation of
urban heritage for policy design (Vernières et al., 2012; Zouain, 2001). The constraints of
both lack of accessibility of quantitative local data and research time made it impossible
to carry out a complete valuation. The outputs of the valuation scheme were thus
limited to a qualitative case study based on previous literature, applied heritage
expertise and experts’ opinions, where quantitative components will be considered in a
purely theoretical manner without application. I am aware the degree of bias and
limitations to a qualitative approach, as well as the restrictions of my own subjectivity to
the analysis. I hope to undertake further research where quantitative elements will be
included in order to complete the valuation in the future.
The case-study approach is an attempt at analysing the possibilities of the
Vernières (2012) grid, bringing it from theory to an appreciation of its application in
Lebanon – attempting to confront the axiomatic knowledge of theory with the testable
arena of the field (Sprinz & Wolinsky, 2002, p. 10). As part of my exploratory case study,
I decided to use a plural and interdisciplinary method, in order to obtain a
comprehensive appreciation of the complex Lebanese setting. This was done through
the inclusion of empirical components marked by first-hand interviews, informal semi-
structured discussions and urban observation of the chosen urban space as well as some
ethnographic elements in order to gather an inter-subjective construction of local
perceptions and ensure triangulation (Sanjek, 2000). This method was chosen in order to
come to terms with casual complexity (Thomas, 2005, p. 855). Moreover, the
combination of these methodologies has assisted me in testing existing theories about
the effectiveness of urban heritage regeneration projects for development, sometimes
falsifying my hypotheses (Sprinz & Wolinsky, 2002, p. 10).
The interviews carried out were all executed with pre-determined questions,
adapted to each interviewee, switching from structured to semi-structured discussions
14
according to the interviewee’s reactions (Appendix 1). The interviews were carried out in
either English or French, depending on the interviewee’s language preference. Emails
presenting my thesis were sent in advance to each individual, explaining why I wished to
interview them and including a few preliminary questions. This design allowed the
participants to express diverse ideas and allowed me to react and follow up on emerging
ideas; the interviews were always kept under one hour and were recorded (Creswell,
2009). The interview strategy included combined elements of maximal variation and
snowball sampling (Creswell, 2009). Interviews were carried out with experts to cover all
domains of the valuation of urban heritage as well as with experts and members of civil
society that would shed light on the status of urban heritage in Lebanon (Appendix 1).
Snowball-effect elements were unavoidable deriving from suggestions from
interviewees and other locals; the variety of interviews was, however, steered in order
to give voice to experts from different backgrounds that might have different
perspectives on the topic. Maximal variation was also undertaken in order to
deliberately interview experts who had controversially been criticised by other
interviewees in order to account for the complexity of the topic.
Further insight was obtained by attending and obtaining documents from three
conferences that addressed issues relevant to the topic. Two of these conferences
focused on the economic aspects of heritage: the first convened by CEMOTEV and the
second by PUCA and the French Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and
Energy. The third conference, held in Beirut, focused predominantly on urban questions
and was organised by the Orient Institute of Beirut and the Goethe Institute (Appendix
2).
In undertaking my research I also decided to carry out a survey which aimed at
asking closed-end qualitative questions to a wider range of Lebanese individuals (66% of
respondents - 60 individuals) and foreigners living in Lebanon (29.7% of respondents –
27 individuals) in order to attempt to collect a fuller picture of the context of urban
heritage in Lebanon and make the argument of this research as empirically strong as
possible by reducing subjectivity (Goodwin & Horowitz, 2002; Marsh, 1982, p. 123).7 The
aim of this survey was not to have samples from every part of the Lebanese population,
7
4 respondents (4.4%) had never been to Lebanon
15
which would have been extremely difficult given the time and resource constraints.
Rather, it was to obtain impressions from individuals interested in urban heritage,
addressing the 0-10% of the population that experts had defined as the percentage of
the Lebanese population taking an interest in urban heritage (Interview E & L). The
survey was carried out in English to maximise the type of respondents as most Lebanese
have good notions of the language.
99% of respondents were in fact interested in heritage in some form: 26.4%
‘worked in heritage or in a heritage-related field’, 7.7% ‘belonged to a heritage
association’ while 64.8% ‘did not work in a heritage-related field but were interested in
heritage’. A total of 91 respondents, tallied through email response and social media,
responded to the survey and results were collated and analysed through
surveymonkey.com. The questions asked in the survey referred directly to hypotheses
derived from the research question and allowed me to test my hypotheses against cases
independent from my argument. Selected survey results will therefore be used in this
thesis’ analysis.
Let us briefly point out the limitations of this survey. The first is that
respondents mainly belonged to younger generations: 42.9% (39) of respondents were
aged 15-24 and 22% (20) were aged 25-34. This is not such a problematic bias in
Lebanon as the population aged 15-24 represented 20% of the population in 2010 and
the median age is 29.34, demonstrating that, although the population is aging, it is still
young (UNESCW, 2011). Moreover, more equitable age distribution can be seen in the
survey’s Lebanese respondents 8 and respondents who work in heritage-related
professions.9
It must also be noted that a predominance of respondents lived in Beirut –
75,6% (59) – which confirms that respondents are probably more exposed to heritage
issues than they would be if living in secondary cities. The survey also attempted to
classify the religion of respondents through location, as this is a predominant issue in
Lebanon between Christians (Maronite, Greek-Catholic, Greek-Orthodox) and Muslims
8
Lebanese respondents: 15-24 (31.67% - 19); 25-34 (20% - 12); 35-44 (21.67% - 13), 45-54 (21.67% - 13),
55-64 (3.33% - 2) and 65+ (1.67% - 1).
9
Respondents who work in a heritage-related field: 15-24 (29.17% - 7); 25-34 (29.17% - 7); 35-44 (25% -
6), 45-54 (8.33% - 2), 55-64 (4.17% -1) and 65+ (4.17% -1).
16
(Sunnis, Shia) as well as Druze and Armenians. This attempt was hindered both by the
small portion of respondents who answered to their specific location of residence, as
well as the fact that the majority of respondents who did answer lived in predominantly
Christian areas. This limitation was, however, overcome through interviews with
experts.
Other more general limitations for this these were related to the tension present
in Lebanon at the time such as sporadic bombings, pressure from the neighbouring
conflict in Syria and the socio-economic burdens deriving from it, as well as other
elements such as lack of transparency and the general belief in the lack of
implementable development projects. None of these elements limited my research,
though they certainly added to its complexity, and the intricacy of the responses
obtained.
17
Diagram 1 – Survey respondents’ summary statistics
18
19
CHAPTER 1 – APPLYING THEORY & LITERATURE

1.1 DEFINING URBAN HERITAGE & DEVELOPMENT
1.1.1 From Theory to Policy
1.1.1.1 Urban Heritage: a living environment
‘Une ville historique constitue en soit un monument mais elle est en même temps un
tissu vivant’ (Choay, 1992, p. 149)10
Harvey (2001, p.318) outlines that ‘there seem to be as many definitions of the
heritage concept as there are heritage practitioners’. As a consequence, scholars have
deliberately chosen wide definitions of heritage in order to acknowledge the inherent
complexity of the implications of this term (Graham & Howard, 2008, p. 59; Lowenthal,
1985). Following this reasoning this paper has chosen to define cultural heritage, as
interpreted by Ashworth & Tunbridge (1996, p.6) and more recently by Vernières (2011,
p.7), as a reflexive selection of an ensemble of goods, material or immaterial, which link
generations, whether past or future. Vernières’ (2011, p.7) definition has also been
adopted because of its precision in stating that cultural heritage has the essential role of
transmitting issues of history, territory or people. The very definition of heritage is thus
intricately linked through its territory to context, which this paper seeks to establish is to
be factored into all development programmes, especially those addressing heritage.
Cultural heritage is also to be considered in relation to social construction, better
encapsulated in the French patrimoine11 which distinguishes itself from simply héritage12
through the former term’s allusion to collectiveness, the characteristic of belonging to a
social group or population or being a bearer of the collective memory of a territory
(Vernières, 2011, p. 8; Smith, 2006). This aspect of heritage is inherently what leads to a
community’s wish to renovate the past. As such, heritage is a social construction
dependent upon spatial and temporal interpretations of the past: this implies that its
meaning is likely to change through time and across space, adding to its complexity.
10
Translation by the author: ‘A historic city is in itself a monument but it also constitutes living fabric’.
11
Patrimoine (French) n.m.: that which is considered the common heritage of a group. Defined by
http://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires, translated by the author.
12
Héritage (French) n.m.: a good acquired or transferred by succession. Defined by
http://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires, translated by the author.
20
The concept of heritage was initially born in Europe (Choay, 1992, p. 11). In
France patrimonial consciousness began in the mid-19th century with Prosper Mérimée,
a commission for historical monuments being established as early as 1837 (Greffe,
1990). In the Arab world, cultural heritage starts as an exogenous concept coming from
colonial, mainly orientalist, compulsions (Hanna, 2010). The idea of urban Arab heritage
and the necessity for its preservation began through an urban European confrontation,
which in Lebanon can be seen through French architectural influences (FischFisch, 2011).
Further recognition of urban heritage did not occur as a result of Lebanese
independence in 1943, and was only highlighted as a post-war reaction to the Lebanese
civil war (1975-1990) as late as the 1990s (Akl & Davie, 1999).13 It is crucial to underline
this fact as, in considering heritage from a development perspective in Lebanon, many of
the issues concerning urban heritage derive from the country’s history, borrowing Cecilia
Pieri’s words: ‘c’est un problème d’histoire’.14
As argued by Choay (1992, p.10) in her keystone work L’allégorie du Patrimoine,
urban heritage is the category of heritage that most directly concerns the environment
of each and every person. Architecture and built form are ultimately for people, which
reveals the risks involved with urban displacement or the transformations of old
neighbourhoods (Serageldin, 1999, p. 9). The Italian architect Gustavo Giovannoni
coined the term ‘urban heritage’ in the 1930s as obtaining its value not as an individual
and autonomous object but as part of the doctrine of urbanism (Choay, 1992, p. 145).
And it has since been argued by numerous scholars that a definition of urban heritage
should go beyond individual buildings to include the ensemble of buildings and
neighbourhoods, villages and entire cities (Bernier, Dormaels, & Le Fur, 2012, p. 245).
From an economic perspective a city is an ensemble of vernacular constructions,
religious or public monuments and routes, with an ensemble of activities ranging from
13
Lebanese urban heritage was somewhat theoretically secured by three studies of identification of
traditional buildings by the American University of Beirut (AUB), the CERMOC (Centre d’Etudes et de
Recherche sur le Moyen Orient) and by the Ministry of Culture administered by APSAD (Association pour
la Protection des Sites et Anciennes Demeures) through Lady Cochrane-Sursock (Akl & Davie, 1999, p.
205).
14
Translation by author: “It is a history problem”. Caecilia Pieri, Observatoir urbain du Proche-Orient,
Institut Français du Proche Orient: “En France la première législation du patrimoine date de 1790 … au
Liban les quelques législations sont beaucoup plus récentes: c’est un problème d’histoire”, meeting at the
th
Modern Heritage Observatory (MoHO), 26 Oct 2013, Beirut.
21
housing to commerce to other types of services and exchanges (Zouain, 2002). Far from
being the sum of different monuments taken in isolation, urban fabric should be
approached as a whole – ‘a tight fabric of minor and major buildings, which explain and
complete each other’ (Vernières et al., 2012, p.17). Each building is part of the urban
composition; one building may not have extensive value on its own, rather it is the
ensemble, the urban fabric, that is granted masterpiece value because of its coherence
(Vernières et al., 2012, p.17) (Interviews I, L & M).
In Lebanon there is a general lack of understanding of the value of urban heritage.
Buildings built later that the 19th century are often not considered to be heritage. In fact,
buildings constructed after the 1950s are not considered heritage even if they are the
only remaining examples of their kind (Interview E). Buildings in sandstone are the only
examples considered to be heritage, many people being convinced that the use of
concrete immediately disqualifies a building from having any heritage value. Moreover,
little value is attached to urban fabric, which is still present in secondary cities but in
Beirut has only a few remaining examples such as Gemmayze, while others such as rue
Spears and rue Abdel Wahab are being destroyed. The destruction of these rich urban
characteristics is damaging on a many different levels. As argued Nobel Prize Laureate
Robert Merton Solow (in Licciardi & Amirtahmasebi, 2012), on the long term it is an
economic imperative that places with strong, distinctive identities are more likely to
prosper than places without them for the understanding of the world is an inherently
geographic concern in generating new meanings, the identification of urban heritage
is thus not to be overlooked in territorial strategy.
These destructions also result in the loss of urban memories (Anderson & Gale,
1992, p. 4). Considering that urban fabric is one of the country’s most enduring
reminders of its violent past, urban heritage’s destruction and the elimination of what
Nora (1989) coined as lieux de mémoire is consequential to the nation’s relationship
with its past, confirming Rautenberg’s (2003, p.17) view that the past is constructed in
the present but also by the present (Akl & Davie, 1999, p. 15). Moreover, defining urban
heritage in Lebanon is given added complexity by the role of the owner and the state.
Poor infrastructure and weak government generally contribute to pressure on Lebanese
22
cities, while real estate pressurises the capital and secondary historic cities are
increasingly ghettoized (Serageldin, 1999, p. 3).
Giovanonni established two responsibilities for urban heritage. First, that an
urban ensemble should be protected while being integrated into local and national
development plans, respecting its scale and morphology while including a certain
flexibility (Vernières et al., 2012, p.18). Second, that in considering urban heritage in
relation to rehabilitation, underlining its social function meant using it for local
development while avoiding museumisation (Choay, 1992; Smith, 2006). This analysis
thus links urban heritage both to identity through its social and historical values, and to
local development.
1.1.1.2 International definitions and inscriptions
Theoretical urban heritage definitions have led to institutionalised international

definitions, which aim to protect urban heritage in the context of growing urbanisation
and to set international guidelines. The ICOMOS Venice Charter (1965) and more
specifically the UNESCO Nairobi statement and the ICOMOS Washington Charter
extended the scope of heritage conservation to include the importance of the urban
scale and the significance of public participation (UNESCO, 1976; ICOMOS, 1987). The
urban ensemble has more recently been recognised by UNESCO in the General
Conference of 2011, which adopted the recommendation on the Historic Urban
Landscape by acclamation, the first such instrument on the historic environment issued
by UNESCO in 35 years (UNESCO, 2011).15 The recommendation declared that the:
historic urban landscape is the urban area understood as the result of a historic
layering of cultural and natural values [and is to include] the broader urban
context and its geographical setting … its built environment, both historic and
contemporary, its infrastructures … its open spaces and gardens (UNESCO,
2011).
This recommendation can be seen as an additional tool to integrate conservation

policies and practices into the wider goals of urban development (UNESCO, 2012).
15
The General Assembly had been requested to adopt a Declaration on the Conservation of Historic Urban
Landscapes (Decision 29 COM 5D) based on the Vienna Memorandum on the Conservation of Historic
Urban Landscapes in October 2005 (Document WHC-05/15.GA/INF.7)
23
Moreover, its comprehensive nature, including both historic and contemporary

structures as well as green spaces is in keeping with sustainable development. The
particular relevance of this recommendation to heritage and development projects is its
role as a ‘soft-law’ to be implemented by Member States as can be seen in the table
below (Interview D).
Table 1 – Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape (10th November 2011)

35th Session (UNESCO, 2011)
a. Recommends that Member States adopt the appropriate legislative institutional framework
and measures, with a view to applying the principles and norms set out in this
recommendation in the territories under their jurisdiction.
b. Also recommends that Member States bring the Recommendation to the attention of local,
national and regional authorities, and of institutions, services or bodies and associations
concerned with the safeguarding, conservation and management of historic urban areas
and their wider geographical setting.
But the reality of such soft laws is that Member States only apply them on a
voluntary basis and consequently they are seldom ratified, which is the case in Lebanon.
Despite what UNESCO delegations may recommend, the enforcing of such soft laws on
the ground in countries with unstable political situations is unlikely to take place and
such recommendations are not in fact integrated into the regulations that administer
the protection of urban heritage (Interview D).
Table 2 – Historic Centres included on the World Heritage List in the MENA Region
Country Cultural Of Which Classified as WHS (date)

WHS Historic
Centres
Algeria 6 2 M’Zab valley (1982), Kasbah of Algiers (1992)
Egypt 6 1 Old Cairo (1979)
Iran 10 2 Esfahan (1979), Bam (2004)
Israel 6 1 Acre (2001), White City of Tel-Aviv (2003)
Lebanon 5 3 Baalbek (1984), Byblos (1984) and Tyre (1984)
Libya 5 1 Ghadamès (1986)
Morocco 8 6 Fez (1981), Marrakesh (1985), Meknes (1996),
Tétouan (1997), Essaouira and El Djadida (2001),
Rabat (Modern Capital and Historic City: a shared
Heritage)(2012)
Syria 5 3 Damascus (1979), Bosra (1980) and Aleppo (1986)
Tunisia 7 3 Tunis (1979), Kairouan (1988) and Sousse (1988)
Yemen 3 3 Shibam (1982), Sana’a (1986) and Zabid (1993)
Total 61 25
*Table expanded from Licciardi & Bigio, 2010.
24
The difficulty of the implementation of such recommendations locally is

reflected by the increase in the number of urban cultural heritage cases submitted to
the World Heritage Committee each year. Table 2 shows the cities included on the
World Heritage List (WHL) in the MENA Region. Their inclusion is to be analysed with
caution, however, as some of the listings do not classify the actual urban heritage but
rather the vestiges found in these cities (World Bank, 2001). The latest cities to be
included, however, such as Rabat or the White City of Tel-Aviv, are listed for their
architectural fabric. This table therefore also marks the evolution of the definition of
heritage at the World Heritage Centre (WHC) which now includes built heritage
ensembles. The rapid increase in demographics and the connected economic pressure
on urban settlements puts urban heritage of all types at risk and, as local protection in
developing countries is often limited, international listing can be seen as an alternative
measure in the attempt to protect. This is to be considered in the Lebanese case where
international protection of heritage could help overcome local legislative limitations.
Lebanon ratified the 1972 WH Convention the 3rd February 1983 (UNESCO, May
2012) (Interview D). In ratifying the convention, Lebanon engaged itself in protecting its
heritage sites, particularly those listed on the WHL, although local and international
experts maintain that the listed sites are not safeguarded as they should be, let alone
unlisted ones (Interview A, I & L) (Huu Tuan & Navrud, 2006).
Table 3 – Lebanese World Heritage Sites
WHS Year Type/Criteria

Anjar 1984 (iii)(iv)
Baalbeck 1984 (i)(iv)
Byblos 1984 (iii)(iv)(vi)
Tyre 1984 (iii)(vi)
Qadisha Valley & the Forest of Cedars of God 1998 (iii)(iv)
* (UNESCO, 2014)
Table 4 – Lebanese World Heritage Tentative List
Site Year Proposed Criteria

Historic Centre of Saïda 1996 (iv)
Historic Centre of Tripoli/Mina 1996 (iv)
Historic Centre of Batroun 1996 (iv)
Temple of Echmoun 1996 (iv)
Ensemble of the Natural Site of the Valley of 1996 (iv)
Oronte with its monuments
25
Ensemble of the Natural Site of the Valley of Nahr 1996 (iv)

Ibrahim with its monument and its archaeological
sites
Ensemble of the Natural Site of the Valley of Nahr 1996 (iv)
el Kelb with its monument and its archaeological
sites
Ensemble of the Natural Site of the Region of the 1996 (iv)
Chouf with its monument and its archaeological
sites
Natural Parc of the Island of Palms 1996 Natural
* (UNESCO, 2014)
Though three Lebanese cities (Baalbeck, Byblos and Tyr) are included on the
World Heritage List, the urban fabric is not in fact protected in either Baalbeck or Tyr,
whose listings are of a primarily archaeological nature (Interview M). Furthermore, even
in for Byblos’s listing, criterion (iv) which mentions that “since the Bronze Age, Byblos
provides one of the primary examples of urban organization in the Mediterranean
world” has been interpreted as referring to the ancient city and not the urban features
of its current town which dates from the crusades (UNESCO, 2014) (Interview I). The
urban heritage of these cities is therefore not internationally recognised or protected by
UNESCO, even though there are common misconceptions to the contrary.
In order to further the protection of urban heritage in Lebanon through
international means, the Lebanese Minister for Culture would have to propose sites on
the indicative list for inclusion (Rizkallah, 2014).16 As we can see from Table 4, the
historic centres of Saïda, Tripoli and Batroun are already on the tentative list. Bahia
Hariri had proposed the preparation of the dossier for the inclusion of Saïda in the 1990s
but the creation of the highway by the sea stopped this endeavour (Interview I).
However, in Lebanon’s current socio-political climate, the situation is stationary.
Possibilities for action that would support urban heritage and development initiatives
need to be addressed from a perspective of local appropriation of heritage more than
from one of international designation.
Delimiting the extent of World Heritage listing of urban heritage in Lebanon is
necessary in our application of the Vernières (2011) valuation grid in Chapter 3 for, as
we have shown, Lebanon has no urban heritage cases included on the WHL, which must
16
The previous Minister for Culture Gaby Layyoun was recently replaced by Ronnie Arayji in light of the
new Tamman Salam Cabinet (February 2014).
26
be considered in our method of identification of urban heritage stock. This makes our
consideration of urban heritage’s other designations all the more necessary in order to
establish its economic, social, cultural and environmental values. Urban heritage’s
standing as a local social function is thus necessary in the consideration of its coupling
with development.
1.1.1.3 Heritage as social construct: Designation vs. Appropriation
Defining heritage as a social construct is especially relevant in moderately

developed countries, scholars having argued that this approach is most prevalent in
areas which experience difficult economic or social situations (Vernières, 2011). Let us
therefore consider heritage theoretically as a social construct, even though, as we shall
analyse in Chapter 2, the hypothesis that heritage is primarily recognised by social
means in Lebanon has proved to be considerably more complex.
It has been argued that the concept of urban heritage is the result of a process of
heritage identification, during which executives or social groups revisit architectural
heritage (Rautenberg, 2004). Urban heritage can therefore be seen as an intellectual
construct that evolves, corresponding to a system of representation that fluctuates
between social groups and time periods (Vernières et al., 2012). Identification and
consequently patrimonialisation can be divided into two processes. As Rautenberg
(2003, p.127) denotes, one process is founded on heritage legislation, which is
‘nationally legitimate’ and ‘legally binding’, whereas the other is ‘social’, founding itself
on actors’ recognition of what heritage is to them. These qualifications do not
necessarily imply that the first option is the more effective, nor the most prevalent.
Identification through designation is the recognition of scientific contribution by
the government (Rautenberg, 2003). This typically results in the legal recognition or
technical obligation to restore urban heritage and it is often tied to the political choice of
branding a nation through heritage and, through this action, pursuing nation-building.
This is what, it can be argued, has been done by certain Middle Eastern countries as
different as Morocco or Qatar (Atkinson, 2011). This validates the fact that designation
of heritage is ultimately tied to political enterprise and operates as an instrument of
cultural power, especially when it concerns urban heritage, as the city is a political actor
27
in itself (Poulot, 2006). It consequently establishes the un-designation or disregard for

heritage as an equally political choice, which confirms that undesignated heritage is not
necessarily without value.
The relationship that heritage maintains with politics and power is moreover
often complex, resulting in superficial and fragile designations, often related to external
pressure from institutions such as the World Bank and UNESCO (Vernières et al., 2012).
This lack of depth and of local involvement often results in the inefficiency of territorial
development strategies, with a concomitant lack of durable valorisation and a non-
sustainable approach (Interview A).
The second mode of heritage identification is appropriation, which is argued to
be of growing importance (Rautenberg, 2004; Vernières, 2011). In this case, a socio-
economic group appropriates and recognises as heritage a good that is not necessarily
institutionally identified as such, even though scientific research may recognise its
heritage value (Rautenberg, 2004). Civil society’s recognition of heritage and its pursuit
of the integration of heritage into planning, in order to develop a comprehensive vision
of the city, is proof of the evolution of the conservation approach (Choay, 1992;
Rautenberg, 2004). More modest elements of the built environment are now included
for the benefit of local populations as a result of this process (Choay, 1992).
The two identification processes present similarities: they both construct a
‘common transmittable good’ and evoke the past in the present. However, their
application marks them as very distinct processes, whereby one cannot simply oppose
the political on one side against the social and popular on the other, for the social
construct of heritage is in fact a complex game between society and institutions
(Rautenberg, 2003, p. 19).
Rautenberg’s (2003, p.127) qualification that the first category presents a
legitimised common good, while the second addresses more folkloric common aspects
pertaining to restrained social groups is only a correct differentiation in an hypothetical
world. Quite the opposite happens in many developing countries, where legitimising
heritage is often not a governmental concern. In many ways this is the case in Lebanon,
where administrative and political weakness is present, without even addressing issues
of corruption, and where elaborating regulations accompanied by control sanctions is
28
very difficult as we shall see in Chapter 2 (Vernières, 2011, p. 12). Appropriation is

therefore necessary for the survival of heritage (Interview L).
Moreover, these approaches make different uses of territory (Stöhr & Fraser
Taylor, 1981). The bottom-up approach used in appropriation defines a new form of
territorialisation and control of space that can come into conflict with top-down uses of
these territories, making this once more a political problem and raising the longstanding
issue of separating between the basic wishes and needs of the inhabitants of an area
and top-down approaches to development and vice versa (Hackenberg, 2002).17
1.1.2 The role of urban heritage in development
1.1.2.1 An instrument for economic development
Throughout the past decade, statistics, indicators and data on the cultural sector,
as well as project implementations, have highlighted ‘that culture can be a powerful
driver for development, with community-wide social, economic and environmental
impacts’ (UNESCO, May 2012). Despite the economic and financial crisis, culture remains
a strong generator in the economic sector, contributing to poverty alleviation and a
growing proportion of GDP in emerging economies (UNESCO, May 2012). Cultural
heritage, creative industries, sustainable cultural tourism, and cultural infrastructure can
function as strategic tools for revenue generation, particularly in developing countries
where the labour force is often substantial and cultural heritage is rich (World Bank,
1999; Ost, 2009). In the Middle East, a growth rate of 17.6% of cultural activities
represents an expanding sector of the economy (UNESCO, May 2012).
As a result, urban conservation has ceased to be regarded as a major obstacle to
economic modernisation and is now assumed as a central driver of change and local
development. In a context of growing inter-spatial competition, cities increasingly rely
on ‘strategies of place’ to attract jobs and investments, and territorial instruments are
used by local actors to improve quality of life and attract a ‘new urban class’
17
‘Development from above has its roots in neoclassical economic theory. The basic hypothesis is that
from a few … geographical clusters development would ... trickle down to the rest of the system.
Development from above is usually capital intensive and dominated by a ’large project’ approach.
Development from below strategies are basic needs oriented, labour intensive, small scale, regional
resource based and argue for appropriate rather than the highest technology.’ (Stöhr & Fraser Taylor,
1981, p.1)
29
(Rautenberg, 2003). The problem in addressing these issues in Lebanon is that, in reality,
developers seldom opt for heritage integration, often choosing more economically
profitable options which are also unsustainable and generally destructive of the urban
environment, both in eliminating valuable buildings and in reducing public areas in order
to use all available space for construction (Appendix 2C).
Three main economic dimensions can be identified in the protection of heritage:
income distribution (employment, products), capital formation (revenue, profit,
entrepreneurial opportunities) and heritage conservation. The latter can be defined as
an economic sector in itself, since it uses resources, produces outputs and generates
profits (Hampton, 2005). It is seen as a catalyst in regeneration projects and it supports
the development of the historic city in order to attract tourism (De Kadt, 1979;
Mowforth & Munt, 1998). Although this thesis will not directly address the relation of
heritage to tourism, it must be acknowledged that tourism is often a direct consequence
of heritage conservation and represents a considerable source of both direct and
indirect income, which in turn has led to many high calibre development projects
(Mowforth & Munt, 1998).
In fact, cultural tourism, based on tangible and intangible cultural assets,
accounts for 40% of world tourism; tourism as a whole employs more than 215 million
people worldwide, and generates approximately 10.4% of the world’s total economic
activity (Licciardi & Bigio, 2010, p. 35). As a result of money spent by visitors within the
surrounding territory of sites and historical cities, cultural tourism is now seen as a
motor of local development (Vernières et al., 2012). This ties in with the fact that the
OECD and WTO have more generally promoted international tourism as a major
component of economic development for many countries (Hampton, 2005). The IMF
and the World Bank have identified a positive relationship between the extent of
specialisation in tourism and long-term growth of GDP, especially for poor countries
(Arezki, Cherif, & Piotrowski, 2009, p. 4). In addition, tourism is the principal source of
foreign currency revenue for 83% of developing countries (Licciardi & Bigio, 2010, p. 35).
Tourism has become one of the world’s fastest growing economic sectors, with gross
worldwide tourism receipts growing at an average rate of 7% from 1998 to 2008, and at
a rate of 12% for the least developed countries (UNESCO, May 2012).
30
In many ways, Lebanon is a perfect candidate to develop a rich tourism sector,

due to its numerous cultural sites mild weather. The country did indeed have a thriving
tourism sector before the civil war, and tourism had begun to flourish again in recent
years. The 2006 war was followed by a great influx of people, both Lebanese nationals
and tourists, showing their solidarity in light of Israel’s actions (Interview A). In 2010,
there was a further climb with over two million tourists, which appeared to promise a
healthy future for the country’s cultural tourism sector (Buccianti-Barakat & Chamussy,
2012).
Since March 2012 and the crisis in Syria, however, many Arab countries have
asked their citizens not to travel to Lebanon because of Hezbollah’s alliance with Assad.
The general tension in the country, with the arrival of Syrian immigrants as well as
various bomb attacks, has resulted in a loss of 60% of the clientèle (Buccianti-Barakat &
Chamussy, 2012). In 2013, there were only one million tourists, 37-38% of whom were
Westerners and 30% Arabs not from the Gulf countries but from Egypt, Jordan, Iran and
Asia (Interview A). In light of this, it is essential to consider Lebanon’s urban heritage
beyond its tourism value, for this latter value may not be able to bear fruit in the
immediate future.
Moreover, one cannot limit heritage to its economic value, although it should
be recognised that the representation of its economic advantages has an important
impact on the consideration given to heritage in public policies. Heritage cannot be
reduced to tourism: some have argued that tourism is a mere by-product of heritage
(Interview M) (Serageldin, 1999). The value of urban heritage goes beyond its use as an
instrument for the economic growth of a territory. A narrow touristic view has been
known to lead to the Disneyfication of historic cities, widespread gentrification and
socio-cultural damage (Zouain, 2002). Previous studies addressing the multiple values of
urban heritage have shown that heritage can and should be considered as capital for our
future, with possible benefits being both quantitative (sustainable tourism, small-scale
enterprises and local economic pay-off) and qualitative (good governance, local
knowledge, social diversity and dialogue and reconciliation) (Licciardi & Amirtahmasebi,
2012).
31
Diagram 2 – Cultural Heritage: A resource for society
*Table expanded from Licciardi (2010)
Urban heritage should therefore be embedded in a framework of sustainable

development that considers not only its economic, but also its social, cultural and
environmental values, and that fosters other values such as mutual understanding,
peace and reconciliation  (UN, 2013). This approach is relevant not only to cases similar
to Lebanon but generally, as urban rehabilitation for cultural tourism often cannot claim
to have a trajectory of sustainable local development in historic cities (Licciardi & Bigio,
2010).
1.1.2.2 The inclusion of Heritage in International Development Goals
The potential role of heritage in sustainable development has been recognised

internationally. Following the high-level thematic debate on ‘Culture and Development’
that took place during the 67th session of the UN General Assembly, at UN Headquarters
in New York on 12th June 2013, the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, UNDP
Administrator Helen Clark and government ministers from all over the world declared
that culture would be given top priority in the post-2015 global development agenda
(UN, 2013). They stressed that culture was providing a motor for economic growth,
social inclusion, equality and sustainable development, and emphasised the need to
develop data as a key tool to inform global policy and recognise the impact of culture on
32
development, in order to sustain and further its integration into future local and
international policies. (UN, 2013). The UN’s recognition of the importance of culture for
sustainable development had been previously seen in the UN General Assembly
Resolutions N. 65/166 (2011)18 and N. 66/208 (2012)19 on ‘Culture and Development’
(UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda, July 2013).
The Hangzhuo Declaration of 17th May 2013 also placed culture at the heart of
sustainable development policies, designating it as an enabler and driver for
development and highlighting its key role as an accelerator of the Millennium
Development Goals (Hangzhou International Congress China, 2013).20 The Hangzhuo
Declaration affirmed the potential of culture because of its inclusive nature, underlining
its social, cultural and economic roles for development as well as its promotion of
environmental sustainability, peace and security. Agenda 21 for Culture and the United
Cities and Local Governments (UCLG) Executive Bureau had also agreed the innovative
policy statement “Culture: Fourth Pillar of Sustainable Development” during the World
Summit of Local and Regional Leaders – 3rd World Congress of UCLG on 17th November
2010 (UCLG, 2010).
These gatherings and documents demonstrate the existence of an international
concern for a new vision of culture, and consequently heritage, diversity and creativity,
as part of sustainable development. They advocate both the construction of stronger
cultural policy worldwide and the integration of a cultural dimension into existing public
policies in the frame of sustainable development. UNESCO should be credited for its part
in stimulating this transformation, which led the UN to establish an independent World
Commission on ‘Culture and Development’ in 1992 and a conference on Culture and
Development (Stockholm, 1998) (World Bank, 1999).
18 th th
UN General Assembly, 65 session, 28 February 2011, “Culture and Development”: Accessed on 4
March 2014: http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/65/166
19 th th
UN General Assembly, 66 session, 15 March 2012, “Culture and Development”: Accessed on 4 March
2014: http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=%20A/RES/66/208
20
The Hangzhou International Congress was attended by the G-77, China, the European Union and the
Community of Latin America and Caribbean States (CELAC).
33
1.1.2.3 Public Policies and Development Programmes
The World Bank, the European Union, the Inter-American Development Bank and
the French Cultural Agency have recently subsidised an expanding set of programmes
dealing with historic city regeneration and cultural heritage conservation making cultural
heritage a doorway for foreign aid (Licciardi, 2010). These internationally funded
projects together with the international resolutions mentioned above suggest that
development is becoming the common denominator of heritage in transnational circuits
(Hackenberg, 2002). Recent publications such as Serageldin’s (1999) Very Special Places,
to the collective work entitled the Economics of Uniqueness (Licciardi & Amirtahmasebi,
2012), which includes contributions from authors such as Ost (2009) and Throsby (2010),
confirm this.
These studies support the idea that projects related to cultural heritage are
defendable in terms of overall profitability. As these projects create the basis for the
creation of further projects of this nature, and possibly establish examples of best
practice, this thesis will briefly analyse their objectives and limitations in order to reflect
on the developments and modifications to be addressed in future project application,
and to place the World Bank’s Cultural Heritage and Urban Development (CHUD) project
in Lebanon into context.
Beginning in 1995 the World Bank shifted its perspective downward to
‘participatory development’ and in 1999 the agency’s revised framework recognised that
all development should intrinsically involve cultural dimensions (The World Bank, 1999).
Since 1970, but with a particular expansion in the last decade, the World Bank has
financed 241 operations focused on heritage regeneration both in historic cities and in
heritage sites, for an investment of over US$4 billion (Licciardi & Bigio, 2010). In 2010
there were 117 such operations under implementation, with an outstanding
commitment of US$2 billion (Licciardi & Bigio, 2010, p. v)
34
Diagram 3 - World Bank loans for conservation or revalorisation

cultural heritage or historic city projects
$3000 000 $2584 570
$2500 000
$2000 000
$1500 000
$882 880
$1000 000
$443 700
$500 000 $102 300
$-
1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2009
*The figures, US$ millions, refer to the World Bank’s monetary implication and not to the total
costs of the project. Figures taken from Licciardi (2010)
Starting from the principle that ‘patrimony is both foundation for the present and
a building block for developments in the future’, the World Bank pursued heritage
development projects through two main methods (Labadi & Long, 2010). It funded
projects pertaining to urban rehabilitation and projects aimed at generating tourism
revenue through cultural tourism (World Bank, 2001). It claimed to be embedding these
projects within a framework for sustainability. In theory, the Bank focused on elements
such as good governance, sustainable tourism or small-scale enterprise, favouring
projects aiming at the reduction of poverty through cultural heritage (Licciardi & Bigio,
2010). In 2001, the MENA region became the first region to have a dedicated World
Bank regional strategy: Cultural Heritage and Development: A Framework for Action in
the Middle East and North Africa (Licciardi & Bigio, 2010, p. vi). This region was to be the
model for the revitalisation of historic city centres, referred to as medinas, to support
economic development in order to illustrate how cultural heritage is pertinent to
sustainable development because of its significance for local populations (Labadi & Long,
2010, p. 209).
The MENA region was chosen because it combined multiple developing
countries lacking infrastructure and with evidence of economic backwardness. The
35
region has low foreign investment flows: the total net flow of direct foreign investment
was only 1% between 1975 and 2000 (Lafrenz Samuels, 2009). The poverty rate in the
region is relatively low, but the need for development is undeniable. The MENA region
was also chosen for its rich cultural heritage, and the majority of projects addressed
urban cultural heritage (albeit not exclusively) for, as previously mentioned, the urban
environment can combine the strengths of cultural heritage with the dynamism of the
urban population and its economic activities (Lafrenz Samuels, 2009). This leads to the
catalytic effects of such projects being more visible and significant in the context of the
city.
In setting up these projects, the World Bank shared the assumption that even in
rapidly urbanizing countries, historic cities are essential repositories of history, traditions
and memories, sustain traditional arts and crafts, and are locations for small-scale
economic activities (Licciardi & Bigio, 2010). It also assumed that cities were hubs for
cultural tourism as well as providing housing and urban services to local populations
(Licciardi & Bigio, 2010). The Bank’s focus was also on the improvement of local
infrastructure aimed at profitable tourism but also contributing to local welfare and
improving living conditions through the development of transport networks, the
management of traffic, water supply, lighting, and the enhancement of public space.
(Lafrenz Samuels, 2009).
The redirection of traditional application of aid makes it is necessary to
determine the implications of a project being implemented or otherwise (Pagiola, 1996).
Such projects are motivated either by heritage at risk of decay or conditions which have
brought about damage in the past (Navrud & Ready, 2002). This damage may be
material, aesthetic or both: the fact remains that if no project were to be implemented
decay would continue, and would consequently bring forth a whole set of derived
negative consequences affirming the necessity for such projects (Pagiola, 1996, p.5). We
can also sustain that although some of these projects’ aspects of development are hard
to measure, they can be acknowledged qualitatively.
An overview of these projects revealed that, although the projects may have
contributed to simultaneous economic development and heritage preservation, they
also presented a series of limitations. There are often two sides to the critiques:
36
‘economists driven by cost-benefit analysis for which growth is the key index of
development, criticise the World Bank for incorporating socio-cultural approaches to
development, while the socio-culturists criticise the World Bank for being too narrowly
economic’ (Lafrenz Samuels, 2010).
Indeed it can be argued that World Bank projects use cultural heritage merely as
an entry point into the application of aid and that, although the projects aim to take a
respectful and sustainable attitude towards culture, there seems to be a lack of
archaeological expertise, given the extent to which heritage preservation actually
becomes a secondary part of the endeavours. In Morocco, for instance, only 6% of funds
were allocated to the aesthetic preservation of façades while 67% of funds were
allocated to the creation and enhancement of infrastructure (World Bank, 2001).
Indeed, ICOMOS and UNESCO have repeatedly voiced frustration over the preservation
of the sites in such projects in comparison to their revenues and it is clear from the
statistics of allocation of funds that a balance between preservation and other
development factors is yet to be found (Lafrenz Samuels, 2010).
One comes to the conclusion that, although the conception of these projects is
forward-thinking, their implementation in countries results in the success of their
campaigns more than in the marriage of heritage and development. Projects planners
underestimated the intricate relations of power in the areas where they were
implemented, which thwarted both their social and cultural aims. In cases such as
Lebanon, aims for good governance are naïve when the proposers of projects have not
considered either the instability of the institutional framework or the non-existence of
respected regulations. The task of involving local communities in the rehabilitation
process was often not applied. However, despite the limitations of the outcomes of
these projects, their implementation is still better than no action and creates the basis
for their further reflection on alternative development strategies.
37
1.2 ECONOMIC VALUATION OF URBAN HERITAGE

1.2.1 Environmental Valuation: Transposing it to Heritage
1.2.1.1 The necessity for economic valuation
The OECD defines evaluation as:
‘the process of determining the worth or significance of a development

activity, policy, or program’, necessary to [...] ‘determine the relevance of
objectives, the efficacy of design and implementation, the efficiency or resource
use, and the sustainability of results.’ (Licciardi & Amirtahmasebi, 2011)
As stipulated by this definition, the necessity of evaluation for heritage policy or

programmes is clear: it is a highly cost-‐effective tool to improve development activities
and support government decisions (Licciardi & Amirtahmasebi, 2011). An evaluation
should enable the incorporation of lessons learned into the decision-‐making process of
both donors and partners (Huu Tuan & Navrud, 2006). Nevertheless, ex-ante evaluations
are not always carried out, even though their necessity seems vital especially when
implementing projects in complex and unstable countries. Carrying out an ex-ante
evaluation for urban heritage and development projects entails undertaking a valuation
of the urban heritage itself in order to establish best recommendations for a given policy
or programme (EFTEC, 2005; Ost, 2009; Vernières et al., 2012).
The economic valuation of heritage is not necessarily the same as the economic
valuation of an urban heritage renovation project (Vernières et al., 2012, p. 6). Although
these two dimensions are intimately related, economic valuation of heritage delimits the
nature and economic condition of a given heritage while a project evaluation should
result in a ranking of the project in question in terms of other alternative uses of a given
heritage (Navrud & Ready, 2002 ; Vernières et al., 2012, p. 6). This thesis will illustrate
the application of the former in Lebanon, for it is the first essential step in order to
evaluate renovation projects (Vernières et al., 2012, p. 6).
1.2.1.2 Economic value of heritage and its limits
In order to carry out a valuation of urban heritage we must consider its values.
Although we have already considered urban heritage as an instrument for economic
development, let us consider more specifically the ways in which it has economic value.
38
John Maynard Keynes established that, in considering urban heritage, it was not only a
matter of intrinsic value but also of use value (Peacock, 1998, p. 65). Deriving from
capital theory, Throsby (in Licciardi & Amirtahmasebi, 2012, p. 45) describes heritage as
an asset. He defines capital as ‘durable goods that give rise to a flow of services over
time that may be combined with other inputs such as labour to produce further goods
and services’ (Throsby in Licciardi & Amirtahmasebi, 2012, p. 45). Thus, according to
Throsby’s definition, built heritage can be classified as cultural capital.
As argued by Dalmas (2012, p.46), the notions of ‘capital’ and ‘heritage’ present a
number of similarities: ‘they are both stocks of material assets or of wealth which could
offer a source of income’. Moreover, heritage as capital requires investment (Ost, 2009).
Investment is the process that maintains and develops any form of capital in the
economy (Ost, 2009). Heritage in historic cities is related to conservation. And
conservation in these terms is an investment process of allocating resources over time
that provides a new framework for economic growth through technological innovations
and market opportunities (Throsby, 2010). For example, in the case of urban heritage,
heritage buildings are re-used for modern activities and/or they develop a framework
for tourism.
However, investment also brings about the opposition between economic and
cultural values of heritage, which should be kept in mind when addressing the
sustainability of development projects (Throsby, 2010). If we consider only the economic
value, through revenue extraction and tourism exploitation of heritage, its other values
will decrease slowly every year; the more it is exploited, the greater the loss of its
cultural, social and environmental value (Zouain, 2002, p. 221). This suggests that there
is a clear differentiation between a market value of heritage and its intangible value
(Peacock, 1998). While the use value rises at the beginning through heritage yield, the
intrinsic value diminishes because the values that make up heritage diminish as a result
of its exploitation. (Peacock, 1998; Zouain, 2002)
39
Diagram 4a – Illustrating economic and intrinsic values (1)
*Diagram taken from Zouain (2002).
In this graph resides the paradox of heritage in economy: there is an opposition

between the economic value of a good and its intrinsic patrimonial value, but at the
same time it is the recognition of these intrinsic values that allows its economic
exploitation (Zouain, 2002, p. 222). This reflection is obviously a shortcut because of its
lack of consideration of non-economic heritage values. The search for an equilibrium
that maximises economic contribution while respecting the patrimonial aspects of the
good is necessary if we want heritage to be living and useful, and it can be a starting
point in considering other heritage values. In reality the relation between intrinsic and
economic value of heritage is not so linear. Economists have given other more realistic
theoretical options, as we can see in Diagram 4b.
40
Diagram 4b – Illustrating economic and intrinsic values (2)
*Diagram taken from Zouain (2002)
Zouain (2002) suggests that after a subjective growth of intrinsic values caused by the
augmentation of the use value of the good, the pursuit of the economic value starts to
diminish the intrinsic value by its simple consumption of heritage. The intrinsic value,
diminishing faster than the economic value, will end by diminishing the latter, which will
in some way be kept over time: a city still has its uses even if it loses its cultural value.
These graphs point out the necessity to consider all of heritage’s values in valuation, in
order to strive for the sustainability of development projects.
1.2.1.3 Total Economic Value
The potential sale price urban heritage (as capital) can be measured either
through real estate or through non-market values (Interview M). This point needs to be
made as, even though market pricing may be limited heritage due to heritage’s over-
reaching intrinsic values, in cases such as Lebanon where heritage designation is limited,
an analysis of the contrast between market prices (local value) and universal value
should be considered in order to estimate loss (Interview M). Abandoned traditional
41
Lebanese villas with high universal value may be sold at extremely low prices: the extent
of the reduction of the exchange value of urban heritage elements should not be
overlooked. In view of the complications, however, non-market measures generally tend
to represent the inclusive values of heritage.
The economic valuation of environmental goods and services presents several
problems: these goods do not have a market value and they do have a multi-
dimensional character (Vernières et al., 2012, p. 70). This makes the determination of
their value complex, for part of its appreciation goes beyond monetary valuation, which
can be seen as limiting its relevance in a decision-making process (Navrud & Ready,
2002). The holistic approach which combines different dimensions ranging from use
value to non-use value is called Total Economic Value (TEV) and has been adapted to
heritage from environmental valuation (EFTEC, 2005). Scholars have arranged TEV’s
diagram in several ways in its adaptation to heritage (Serageldin, 1999; Vernières, 2012;
Zouain, 2002). In evaluating any project or policy in which a heritage asset is destroyed
or depreciated, the TEV of the lost asset needs to be determined, as the all-
encompassing measure of a heritage asset (OECD, February 2007; Pearce, Atkinson, &
Mourato, 2006).
TEV is a key passage for heritage economic valuation as it considers both active
and passive uses of heritage. The use and non-use values of urban heritage appeal to the
marketable and non-marketable sides of the equation (Pagiola, 1996). The singular
definition of heritage, being a commodity with value going beyond the commodity itself,
requires such a distinction, where use and non-use values simultaneously develop
quantitative and qualitative approaches (Ost, 2009).
42
Diagram 5 –Total Economic Value of Urban Heritage
*Diagram altered from Serageldin (1999), Zouain (2002) & Vernières (2012)
The use values of a heritage asset are the direct benefits that derive from it as
illustrated in Diagram 5, while the non-use values refer to the assets people wish to
preserve for future generations (bequest values), or simply attach aesthetic or unique
value to (existence/intrinsic values) (Vernières, 2012). Non-use values are a pre-requisite
to use values for heritage; without non-use values market transactions would not be
generated and additional economic value would not be created (Ost, 2009). However,
non-use values are not marketable and are therefore not directly measurable in
monetary terms (Ost, 2009, p. 15).
Direct use values refer to the possible direct economic benefits deriving from
urban heritage, such as revenues (Vernières, 2012). Indirect use values are not
necessarily linked to heritage buildings or monuments. An example is tourism
expenditure on lodging or food that does not take place in heritage buildings but
increases the economic value of a historic city (Ost, 2009). This implies that the
economic value of historic cities is partly determined by the nature of the integration of
urban heritage into a city as a whole. Consequently, as argued by Ost (2009), lack of
43
‘accommodation, infrastructure and supply of goods and services can result in missed
opportunities for induced growth, development and welfare’.
The access and visit possibilities of characteristic buildings and monuments can
thus strengthen the economy of the city. Some economic impacts also occur out of the
city and benefit a larger economic environment. Moreover, when buildings or
monuments have no open access, or admission fees, tourists enjoy their beauty from
the outside but economic opportunities are missed (Ost, 2009). TEV also allows the
consideration of the environmental value of heritage for, as it is measurable, it refers
back to the use value of urban heritage and, as it is linked to the future use of a building,
which relates to its option value (Interview M).
Table 5a and 5b below illustrate Lebanon’s opportunities.
Table 5a – Illustration of use-values in Lebanon (Beirut)
Non-use Values Few economic incentives for safeguarding urban heritage – Non-use values
can be determined through expert opinion as social behaviour is limited
(Chapter 2).
Domestic External Public Private
Consumption Consumption Expenditure Investment
Direct-use Inhabitants pay Rent for No economic Almost non-
values for rent for heritage temporary incentives by existent private
occupancy houses they accommodation municipality or investments
occupy – but (Saifi Urban government for
often obliged to Gardens, BeYT) urban heritage
sell because of preservation
Old Rent Law.
Direct-use Local residents Tourists pay to Municiplaity Almost non-
values for visits pay to visit visit National provides very existent
National Museum, Sursock limited Tourism
Museum, Sursock Museum. information
Museum.
Indirect-use Residents buy Tourists pay for No budget for Real-estate
values books at Paper- lodging, food and urban fabric developments
cup or drinks at transportation. upkeep. booming.
Secteur 75 (Mar Souvenirs not
Mikhael). available in
Beirut.
*Inspired by Ost (2009) and fieldwork
44
Table 5b – Illustration of use-values in Lebanon (Saïda)
Non-use Values Various economic incentives for safeguarding urban heritage – Non-use
values can be determined through expert opinion as social behaviour is
limited (Chapter 2).
Domestic External Public Private
Consumption Consumption Expenditure Investment
Direct-use Inhabitants pay Rent for No economic Audi Foundation
values for rent for heritage temporary incentives by and Hariri
occupancy houses they accommodation municipality or foundation
occupy. Many – limited. government of restore buildings
live under the urban heritage and urban fabric.
poverty level. preservation.
Direct-use Local residents Tourists pay to The Audi Up keeping and
values for visits pay to visit the visit the Chateau Foundation development of
Chateau de la de la Mer. The provides maps the Soap
Mer. The Soap Soap Museum and tourist Museum and the
Museum is free. and Debanné information. Debanné Palace.
palace are free.
Indirect-use Locals buy food, Tourists pay for No budget for Expansion of
values clothes and food and urban fabric restaurants by
anything else souvenirs (Soap upkeep. the port.
from the souk in Museum.)
the historic
centre.
*Inspired by Ost (2009) and fieldwork
Non-use values try to capture ‘the enrichment derived from the continued
existence of heritage’: even if it is not visited, one would feel impoverished if it no longer
existed (Smith, 2006). Existence value can therefore be defined as the value placed upon
the knowledge that a heritage asset exists, and measured by what a person would be
willing to give up in exchange for that knowledge. For a public good to have existence
value there are two necessary conditions: uniqueness and irreversibility. If these
conditions are not present, then the public good in question probably has a small or zero
existence value. People have argued that an asset cannot be valued if it is not used, as is
sometimes the case with heritage. However, this is not supportable in economic theory
and does not rule out existence value, for people reveal existence value through their
behaviour (OECD, February 2007). Nevertheless, as we shall see, the Lebanese case
presents difficulties in its valuation because of the complexities of its context.
The Option and Quasi/Option values refer to the position of not having yet
considered the possibility of the value of a said resource. It is heritage’s ‘insurance
45
policy’, referring to a heritage asset’s possible future value or the value of the
information we can derive from it (OECD, February 2007). It further supposes that even
if there is no imminent plan for a heritage asset, its destruction will result in an
irreversible impact and loss; economically, there is a high value associated with not
making irreversible decisions. For example, if we destroy a building or a neighbourhood
and later find that it was considered a model of urban planning or that certain buildings
presented unique examples of certain features, we would be presented with a huge loss
of the unknown. The main challenges therefore lie in measuring the non-use values of
heritage (Serageldin, 1999).
These measures may furthermore not represent the complex and complete
worth of the urban environment. The fact remains that urban heritage examples differ
from other examples because of their aesthetic, historical, cultural and social
significance (Serageldin, 1999, p. 26). In particular, the cultural dimension differentiates
heritage from other similar assets such as the environment. For example, aesthetic
effects differ from non-use values because they require a sensory experience, and at the
same time aesthetic benefits are intimately linked to physical ones (Serageldin, 1999, p.
26). The cultural dimension of an urban space is also tied to other intangible values such
as identity or religion which cannot be accurately measured (Ost, 2009; Peacock, 1998;
Throsby, 2010).
Indeed, from an economic analysis standpoint, urban heritage projects
distinguish themselves from traditional urban projects precisely by this cultural
dimension associated with them (Vernuères et al., 2012, p. 48). Moreover, the cultural
dimension is key in contributing to the ‘stability and resilience of an urban ecosystem’ as
well as to the binding of a community around urban heritage (Vecco in Vernières, 2012;
Smith, 2006). It is therefore clear that, although TEV considers the values of urban
heritage inclusively, it cannot reflect them all nor explain all the relationships between
them (Vernières et al. 2012, p. 71). It may therefore be more useful, when considering
the estimation of cultural value, to explore heritage identity theory more than economic
principles to evaluate the extent to which urban heritage is an essential part of the
protection of a sense of local identity.
The identification of all these values does not necessarily imply their use in
46
practice (Vernières, 2012, p. 72). Nevertheless, TEV does help to identify the different
values that contribute to decision-making in a permanently complex or controversial
sector and is used as an element in decision-making concerning the funding and
implementation of projects (Vernières et al., 2012). Moreover, as delineated in the Getty
Conservation Report, decision-making in this arena is made complex as each value
ascribed to heritage is contested by a variety of stakeholders participating in the
heritage conservation process (Ost, 2009). Balancing these values is among the greatest
challenges in making conservation decisions that satisfy the stakeholders’ different
needs (Ost, 2009).
Economists have developed a range of approaches to estimate these values. Use
value is measured by observable or imputed revenue flows while non-use value is
measured by stated preference survey methods such as contingent valuation and
discrete choice modelling (Navrud & Ready, 2002). These methods are usually based
around Willingness to Pay (WTP) and Willingness to Accept (WTA); in the case of urban
heritage: WTP to keep a heritage building or urban area or WTA its deterioration.
Economists have more faith in WTP than WTA because, although in theory the two
principles are the same, in reality WTA brings too much bias (OECD, February 2007).
Studies are carried out using complex survey methods. Most studies done for heritage
have used contingent valuation for this allows non-use or intangible values to be
evaluated. Of the 28 such studies carried out in 2002, only 7 related to urban heritage,
and these presented many limitations because of the close interlink between use and
non-use values (Navrud & Ready, 2002). By 2013, more than 100 studies had been
executed (many in WHS), with increasing examples of choice modelling (CM), hedonic
pricing (HP) and travel cost (TC) methods, even though the two latter have been argued
to be non-effective (Ost, 2009; Zouain, 2002).
The range of limitations presented by these techniques will not be addressed in
this thesis. It must be noted, however, that their main constraints lies in their reliance on
population opinion. In addressing heritage, one may wish to preserve an asset even if
current generations do not favour it, and one may feel compelled to preserve from a
sense of duty, regardless of the opinion of the general population (Navrud & Ready,
2002). These methods are therefore not sufficient to determine an investment, and
47
heritage and development projects often rely on expert opinion.
1.2.2 The VERNIÈRES (2012) GRID
1.2.2.1 The origins of the Vernières (2012) grid
The complexity of the values of urban heritage and the need for heritage to be
embedded in a framework of sustainable development which finds a point of balance
between its economic and socio-cultural values present a challenge. Vernières’ (2012)
method aims to economically valuate urban heritage through an inclusive approach,
considering the multidimensional aspects of urban heritage as well as the dynamics of its
character, and it has therefore been adopted by this thesis in order to tackle these
challenges. The Vernières (2012, p.91) grid results from a study of works by Ost (2009)
and the sustainable approach promoted by the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB)
(2010).21
The principle of sustainability is essential in the case of urban heritage because of
the need to transmit heritage to future generations and to consider its multi-lateral
values. A sustainability perspective can therefore be seen as the first pre-requisite for
urban heritage valuation that aims at effective recommendations for urban heritage and
development projects. Moreover, ‘the interaction between the different dimensions of
urban heritage enables its sustainability to be defined’ (Vernières et al., 2012, p. 52).
Inscribing its reflexion in a framework of sustainability and principles of
environmental economics, Vernières (2012, p. 95) retained two criteria to rank
indicators: the present condition of urban heritage, based on supply characteristic in
cultural, economic, social and natural dimensions, thus adding the cultural dimension to
their definition of sustainability, and the future evolution of urban heritage, based on
investment flows and on the depreciation of supply. The grid thus refines the definition
of cultural capital, which is divided between the stock of assets (heritage buildings,
urban fabric) and the flow of services (use and adaptive re-use of heritage buildings and
heritage tourism) (Throsby, 2010).
21
Ost (2009) used an approach derived from TEV and defined indicators and measures to allow an
economic valuation of heritage. Vernières (2012, p.92) finds Ost’s main limitation in the overlap of the
data its indicators provide which do not lead to monetary evaluation.
48
In its division of stock and flow the Vernières (2012) model breaks the analysis
grid into 4 steps: a stock analysis identifies the urban heritage, a flow analysis defines
the different types of economic value, and an investment and depreciation analysis
evaluates the sustainability of urban heritage evolution, and thresholds and risk effects
are also defined (Vernières et al., 2010, p.97).
Diagram 6 – Constitutive elements of the Vernières (2012) analysis grid
*Table from Vernières (2012)
1.2.2.2 Multi-lateral Approach
This thesis will provide an analysis of the grid and a commentary of the possible
local application of this grid in Lebanon in Chapter 3. The illustration in Chapter 3 will in
address stock through available data analysis and expert opinions, it will not consider
flow of services, however, because of lack of available data. Non-use values will be
considered according to non-monetary indicators allowing ranking of heritage in scales
as done by Vernières (2012, p.101). This will limit the nature of this illustration, as in
valuations completed by Vernières, but can bring indicative estimations of urban
heritage values.
Non-use-values will also be commented through expert opinions as Lebanon
presents a particularly complicated context for non-use value measurements of flows.
For example, if we consider that a possible indicator for the measurements of flow of
the bequest value of urban heritage is the extent to which ‘local authorities are
committed to the conservation of urban heritage’ (Vernières et al., 2012, p.101) – this
49
indicator may continually be negative in Lebanon due to local political tension and
corruption. Its hypothetical continual negative outcome however, should not be
interpreted as an indicator not to fund urban heritage and development projects.
Table 6 – Indicators of the condition of urban heritage in its four dimensions
Economic Capital Cultural/Architectural Capital

Distribution between owners, tenants of Number and types of protected buildings,
housing services and shops unprotected monuments, vernacular heritage
Real estate value: sale or rental divided by Conditions of Buildings (good, average,
category: housing, shops, services, tourism. decaying, disappeared, empty)
Attractiveness of the territories for economic Use of urban heritage (housing, services,
activities and visitors (number of visitors, shops, religious monuments, visited, private or
location of companies, weight of investments). public, tourism)
Average income of city’s inhabitants and its Adaptability of heritage to present-day
territory/Income structure functioning standards (parking, access,
housing, comfort, safety, networks)
Infrastructure condition (transportation, Inscribed or non-inscribed heritage
sewage, water supply etc.)
Accommodation facilities, hotels, etc. Role of local heritage (education, cultural
facilities, commemorative sites)
Social and Human Capital Natural Capital
Number of inhabitants of the country and the Condition and existence of parks and green
town, and its age distribution spaces
Health indicators Exposure to natural risks
Education levels, number of heritage Conditions of sewage network and refuse
professionals (archaeology, architecture, collection and treatment
urbanism etc.)
Indicators of delinquency Level and type of pollution
Number and type of associations Presence of harmful animals and degradation
Local participation in heritage maintenance or Interaction with coastline (sea water pollution,
renovation/conservation work sea level, beach pollution, integration of the
sea with the city)22
*Table adapted from Ost (2009) & Vernières (2012)
An approach in terms of stock brings us back to the notion of heritage as capital

viewed as stocks of material or immaterial assets which could offer a source of income
(Dalmas et al., 2012, p. 46). The sustainable approach leads to the consideration of four
classifications of capital that concern urban heritage (Vernières et al., 2012, p.96):
physical & technical capital (economic dimension), social capital (human and social
dimension), natural capital (environmental dimension), cultural and architectural capital
22
This environmental aspect is especially relevant in Lebanon and should not be overlooked, as all the
cities that will be considered are coastline cities.
50
(aesthetic and cultural dimension) (Vernières et al., 2012, p.97). The valuation of urban
heritage in terms of the stock of these different forms of capital can be compared to an
inventory where the data to be collected varies according to examples of urban heritage
(Vernières et al., 2012, p.97). It is thus necessary to consider already existing inventories,
possible at different dates to see an evolution in stock. Table 6 illustrates the indicators
to be considered for each of urban heritage’s four dimensions:
In analysing the case of Lebanon it is also essential to consider indicators related
to regulatory and legal constraints, or lack thereof (Vernières et al., 2012). Considering
these factors have a key role in urban heritage’s exploitation and are confronted with
substantial limitations in Lebanon, they will be analysed in greater detail in Chapter 2. In
terms of flow the Vernières (2012, p.100) model valuates the economic value of services
rendered by urban heritage, while acknowledging that any economic impact of such
examples usually goes beyond urban heritage areas. Just as we measure the GNP of a
country with an annual flow value, we can measure the annual flow value of heritage
(Ost, 2009).
The territory of flow measurement is first established and then values are
calculated. There are limitations to the different methods but a macroeconomic
approach is often used like in accounting: the economic stakes of urban heritage are
indicated through their different direct and indirect use values in comparison to the
expenditure flow (Vernières et al., 2012, p.100). If we refer back to Ost (2009) (Table 5a,
5b) he divides expenditure between direct use values related to occupation, to visits and
indirect use values. He also divides them according to the macroeconomic model:
domestic consumption, non-resident consumption, public consumption, non-resident
investment and resident investment (Vernières et al., 2012, p.101). Values related to
tourism are also considered for they often result in substantial economic exchanges.
An approach in terms of investment and depreciation is directly related to the
fact that rehabilitating and valuing urban heritage contributes to the economic
development of a historic city (Vernières et al., 2012, p.102). It is a question of
measuring whether the investments made into urban heritage will ensure its
sustainability, where sustainability is defined as the ‘capacity of maintaining at least the
same overall level of the different assets (or stocks) that make up heritage’ (Vernières et
51
al. 2012, p.105). In the case of Lebanon we shall speculate on projects yet to be
completed in order to discuss the future outcomes of the city.
Table 7 – Investment and Degradation indicators in Lebanon
Investment Depreciation
Volume and type of general investment in the Depreciation of economic capital: neglect of
area: Huge real estate expansion. many buildings
Volume and type of recent investments (public
and private) in heritage
Interventions of patrimonial buildings by type Decay of heritage buildings
of heritage (protected, unprotected)
Interventions on public spaces in historical
centres
Education and training expenditures, in the Departures, loss of human capital
tourism, artistic and cultural sectors
Expenditures on city environment (norms) Degradation of the natural capital (pollution,
waste, accumulation, animal degradation)
*Table modified from Ost (2009) & Vernières (2012)
Starting from investment and degradation flows, the Vernières (2012) grid
theoretically estimates the net accumulation rates in urban heritage’s different
dimensions.23 They then combine and visualise data on a sustainability diagram in order
to reflect on recommendations for future urban heritage and development projects. The
threshold values established for the diagram are theoretical and start from a point in
time: 0.0% represents the threshold of sustainability, in the current state of urban
heritage, -1,0% denotes unsustainability as it as overcome degradation and 1.0%
represents sustainability as it has received investment (Vernières et al. 2012, p.108).
1.2.2.3 The Diagram
The sustainability zone of Vernières’ (2012, p.9) grid corresponds to a zero or

positive accumulation in the four dimensions. The unsustainable zone corresponds to a
negative accumulation in any of the 4 dimensions. The threshold of sustainability
corresponds to the boundary between the two areas.
23
Theoretically implies that this is done without monetary valuation as an illustrative exercise.
52
Diagram 7 – Sustainability diagram of urban heritage
The purpose of the diagram is to illustrate the different possibilities of

sustainability for a given heritage in its 4 dimensions (Vernières et al. 2012, p.111). The
two following diagrams will illustrate the case of strong sustainability and weak
sustainability as presented by Vernières (2012).
Diagram 8a – Theoretical example of sustainable heritage
53
Diagram 8b – Theoretical example of unsustainable heritage
The two examples are completely theoretical, real situations in Lebanon will
concern mixed configurations. The question to be asked is whether accumulation in one
area compensates degradation in another (Vernières et al. 2012, p.111). Theoretically an
approach of ‘strong sustainability’ would be preferable. By definition the cultural value
of heritage is non-renewable and irreversible.24 A consideration of this irreversible
character is related to the question of ‘authenticity’, much discussed in heritage theory
(Lowenthal, 1985). In a framework of ‘strong sustainability’, it can be considered that
the existing urban building heritage cannot be substituted, and even though this is
debatable when addressing urban heritage in the case of Lebanon at the moment,
because of the extreme degradation of its urban heritage as we shall see in Chapter 2, a
‘strong sustainability’ can be seen as the only possible approach.
In considering the economic dimension, as discussed earlier, economic and
cultural values have opposing natures making these two dimensions un-substitutable
(Diagram 4a). Inequity risks linked to the social dimension resulting in marginalisation
and gentrification are to be considered, in the case of Lebanon especially in secondary
cities where the local low-income population is still very present in historic city centres
24
Generally because, Holtorf, C., (2001). ‘Is the Past a Non-Renewable Resource?’ in Destruction and
conservation of cultural property, argues that heritage is renewable because of its continual discovery and
the new inclusions to what we consider heritage.
54
(Dalmas et al., 2012, p. 45). As for the environmental dimension, the rate of degradation
as we shall see in Lebanon is such that it would be hard to compensate its loss with
another value.
These diagrams’ objectives are to provide operational charts which use both
monetary and non-monetary methods that indicate value levels of both urban heritage’s
current situation and possible value levels that would transpire from future projects.
These actions result in the determination of recommendations for future urban heritage
and development projects. The advantage of this method resides in the fact that
monetary valuation is not necessary for it can be replaced with expert analysis and
fieldwork, which is useful in developing countries where there is limited access to data
essential to economic valuation (Dalmas et al., 2012, p. 45). Moreover the grid provides
a unified framework, which simultaneously addressed all of urban heritage’s
dimensions.
The grid presented certain large limitations in its application to the case studies
of Sousse (Tunisia) and Saint –Louis (Senegal) (Vernières et al. 2012). The first limitation
is the work’s consideration that all urban heritage in the perimeters of these two cities
had the same value; for these two examples the approach was justified by both sites
being on the WHL, however this approach could not be adapted to unlisted heritage
cities. Moreover the considerable limitations of the data used for the grid’s application
to these two cities, yields an analysis which derives limited conclusions (Interview M).
The grid would thus have to be adapted for the consideration of cities not inscribed on
the WHL and a reconsideration of the use of data and expert analysis should be
considered.
1.2.2.4 Context and Territory
Indermit Gill, Director of Development Economics and Chief Economist at the

Work Bank said ‘we as economists think about how things are done and what things are
done but we don’t think that much about where things are done, and this point can be
the difference between poverty and prosperity’ (Bendix, Eggert, & Paselmann, 2012). As
mentioned in the introduction, the very nature of cultural heritage inscribes its role in an
inclusive definition of development (Vernières, 2011; UNDP, 2013). This definition also
stipulates that development is a variable process according to which country it is
55
inscribed into, highlighting the importance of each country creating its own model of
development according to its culture and history (Vernières, 2011, p. 8). Furthermore,
this definition inscribes itself in a concept of development by the population where the
local population is considered, should be consulted and participate in decision-making
(Stöhr & Fraser Taylor, 1981; Vernières, 2011, p. 7). Architects have furthermore
outlined the vital need to take into consideration the territory in contemporary urban
planning and therefore the complexity of territorial factors to properly interpret the
facts and new proposals for the city (Bayo, 19; Smith, 2006).
Nevertheless, context and territory are often not integrated in development project
planning hoping to create one universal methodology that can be successfully applied
everywhere and resulting with wanting results (Interview A & M). The problem often
derives from the imposition of western notions and models of heritage and
development, which need to be adapted to different conceptions of notions and the
specificity of each territory (Vernières, 2011). The biggest issue is not only that
development program universality often results in wanting developing projects but also
in the wasting of funds (Interview A & M). In the case of Lebanon and Beirut, even if we
do not consider it in isolation, looking at the similar conditions of the region, in
Damascus, Cairo, Casablanca or Tehran where politicisation of urban life, polarisation
and fragmentation are also present, each case will present its own internal issues that
have to be applied in order to conclude to effective policy recommendations (Appendix
2c).
This thesis will thus argue that the implementation of context is necessary not only
in urban heritage project methodology but urban heritage valuation methodologies, for
valuation of heritage changes from country to country according to its local designation
and appropriation. Indeed, the importance of context is particularly relevant in the
consideration of development projects linked to heritage, not only because the
differentiation of patrimony from country to country but because of the differences in
patrimonialisation from place to place. Considering contextual and territorial
preconditions such as regulation and actor analysis is necessary in order to avoid being
misguided in heritage’s values.
56
This thesis will thus go on to analyse regulations or lack there-of and actors in order
to attempt to integrate context in the Vernières (2012) valuation methodologies, which
should result in a more precise valuation of urban heritage which should foster more
precise recommendations for future policies. Adopting the notion that a toolbox is to be
adopted in establishing both valuation and project methodology, where the choice of
tools to be used to valuate urban heritage fluctuates from case-study to case-study
(Vernières, 2011).
57
CHAPTER 2 - URBAN HERITAGE IN LEBANON

2.1 THE FAILURE OF HERITAGE POLICIES IN LEBANON
2.1.1 A Short History
In order to analyse urban heritage in Lebanon, let us first give a brief overview of
its history, dividing it into three phases: before, during and after the Lebanese civil war.
Before the war, certain Lebanese presidents, in particular Camille Chamoun (1952-1958)
and Fuad Chehab (1958-1964), strove to create a stable state and administration
(Buccianti-Barakat & Chamussy, 2012) (Interview A). In this context, there was some
hope of urban heritage being protected and used for development, good governance
being an essential condition for the use of urban heritage as an asset for its country.
Chehab was conscious that tourism was a resource possessed by Lebanon and
consequently tried to develop the sector (Bendix, Eggert, & Paselmann, 2012). This
worked well at the time, for Lebanon was branded as a country of tradition and yet of
modernity – the ”western Middle East” – and this made it a top tourist destination in the
region (Interview A). At the same time APSAD (Association pour la Protection des Sites et
Anciennes Demeures), founded in 1959, became the first NGO for the protection of
heritage in the Arab world, and Lady Yvonne Sursock Cochrane made it her objective to
preserve heritage buildings in Lebanon (Hanna, 2010).
On the other hand, an avant-gardist architectural movement and the political will
to modernise was also already present with the aim of renovating Beirut and the
country’s urban fabric in order to create modern neighbourhoods and the ‘Manhattan’
of the Arab World (Akl & Davie, 1999; Choay, 1992, p. 13). Examples existed early on,
such as the Monaco of Jounieh and the Lebanese Casino (Interview A). Beirut was in fact
one of the few cities in the region to take the approach of ‘let’s build a city on top of a
city’ at the time, more conservationist approaches being adopted in North Africa and in
neighbouring Damascus and Istanbul (Interview C). Moreover, though there was
economic well-being at the time, there was also a profound sectarianism in Lebanese
society and great material inequalities were present – for example, between the
prosperity of neighbourhoods in the centre of Beirut and the poverty surrounding the
city in Palestinian camps such as Jisr el-Bacha and Tall az-Zaatar and zones such as Nabaa
(Tabet, 2001, p. 43).
58
The war of 1975 resulted in regional conflict, Israeli occupation, the presence of
Palestinian fighters, the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) on Lebanese territory,
and many socio-economic and political tensions. With the civil war came the destruction
of the cities, in particular Beirut, which gave rise to a need for housing. The first phase
was not the overflow of peripheral buildings one sees today, but seaside or mountain
housing, which responded to the common need and created gated communities: people
did not want to definitively leave their homes but needed a place of refuge (Akl & Davie,
1999) (Interview A). The second phase was characterised by heavy construction on
agricultural land, diminishing natural areas. On the Christian side, construction of the
Jounieh area, after the tunnel going north from Beirut, which was previously filled with
citrus cultivation, expanded greatly mainly during the war. The division of the Druze,
Sunni and Shiite on the other side of the capital was more complex.
The centre of Beirut was gravely damaged between 1975 and 1977: many
buildings, such as those constructed under the French mandate, were perceived as
symbols of a blamed political order rather than as part of the nation’s identity and were
the target of several hostile factions (Tabet, 2001). The urban environment was further
affected during the 1982 Israeli invasion, when Beirut was under siege for two months.
Secondary cities were less affected during the war, but urban spaces were disrupted
especially in the south. Parts of Saïda were destroyed, for example, and after the war
wealthy private inhabitants of the city and associations such as the Audi Foundation
would help in its reconstruction (Al-Harithy, Dabaj, & Haidar, 2013). Some of the
destruction was later used to create more destruction; for example, Rafi Hariri’s
construction of the sea route to Said involved the continuation of the destruction
started by the Israelis of the buildings facing the port (Interview H). This is an example of
why it is often said that the destruction of Lebanon’s urban heritage did not actually
take place until its reconstruction.
After the war Beirut was scarred, its façades gnawed by bullets, with many
abandoned buildings and a grave degradation of infrastructure. Outside the city centre
6% of buildings had been destroyed and 22% damaged. In the entire city the destruction
was estimated at 10%, yet the city did still maintain a certain coherence (Tabet, 2001, p.
43). Along the 4.5 km of the demarcation line, which separated the city’s confessional
59
entitles, the urban fabric was more affected, with 23% of buildings unsalvageable and
destroyed and 58% substantially damaged (Tabet, 2001, p. 43). The souks and central
quarters had sustained heavy damage: the area became a no-man’s land with new
centres being built in Achrafieh, Dora and Jdeideh (Tabet, 2001).
Rafic Hariri brought reconstruction but, being primarily a businessman, he did not
fully recognise urban heritage; global reconstruction plans were never adopted and the
1995-96 plans for the reconstruction of tourism were never realised (Interview A). Urban
plans were made but not implemented, which remains the case today (Interview A, I, L,
& M). It is ironic that buildings that survived the war did not survive the peace, due to
the aggressiveness of real estate as Lebanon’s biggest economic driver (Sharp, 2010).
The potential of urban heritage to create prestige or revenue was not taken into
account.
Today, Lebanon is presented with an extremely delicate political situation.
Economic growth has fallen dramatically and Tammam Salam’s caretaker government is
unstable, with elections planned for this year (2014) (2014 Index of Economic Freedom,
2014). The sectarian political system limits the public accountability of elected officials
and political and bureaucratic corruption is
widespread. General development is
moreover hampered not only by political
instability but by lack of transparency and
regulatory inefficiency; institutional reforms
necessary for long-term economic
development are not implemented (2014
Index of Economic Freedom, 2014). These
issues create an atmosphere in which the
common citizen cannot always express
himself on decisions concerning his city, but
more importantly he is not heard (Akl &
Davie, 1999, p. 162). Lebanon falls well below average under certain legislative issues
such as Property Rights, which measure the degree to which a country’s laws protect
60
private property rights and the degree to which its government enforces those laws, and
Freedom from Corruption (2014 Index of Economic Freedom, 2014).
Diagram 9 – Rule of Law
* (2014 Index of Economic Freedom, 2014)
All these issues present difficult conditions in which to implement development

projects, whether or not they are related to heritage. Lebanon is furthermore in a state
of security unrest because of the recent bombings; since the outbreak of the Syrian crisis
in early 2011, 17 explosions have killed a total of 139 people (Rowell, 2014). The
neighbouring conflict in Syria has also resulted in a great influx of refugees, which
amount to just under one million, bringing huge strain to a country of only four million
people through housing shortages and multiplying the number of vehicles on the road
among other things (Rowell, 2014; UNDP, 2013). All these factors mean that urban
heritage and its use for development are not among the most pressing issues. And yet it
is exactly in these types of situation that whole histories are lost; in Lebanon’s case one
of its strongest resources for development is under threat, and at this rate it may have
disappeared by the time the situation eases (Wood, 2006, p. 26).
Diagram 10 – The ideal approach for urban heritage regeneration projects
*Table adapted from Lindblom & Paludan-Müller (2012).
61
In order to address the effects of context and territory on the valuation of urban
heritage this thesis will be dividing its argument according to Diagram 10, and
addressing ‘Policy, Legislation & Regulation’, ‘Civil Society Mobilisation’ and lastly
‘Physical Interventions.
2.1.2 Urban Heritage Policy and Regulation in Lebanon
The stakeholders of the regeneration of historic cities vary widely. Stakeholders

may include, on an institutional level, officials from different levels of government, local
community representatives, property owners and real-estate investors, and, on a civil-
society level, individuals, experts or organisations (Licciardi & Amirtahmasebi, 2012, p.
144).
The importance of institutional address in the consideration of heritage comes
from the need to establish heritage conventions, whether formal or informal. In the case
of heritage, regulation is the most common form of government intervention (Licciardi &
Amirtahmasebi, 2012, p. 60). Criteria are determined to establish which heritage items
are significant enough to be publically controlled, and standards are instituted for the
ways in which heritage buildings should and can be protected, conserved, restored,
altered, or adaptively re-used (Licciardi & Amirtahmasebi, 2012, p. 60). These
regulations can be either ‘hard’ enforceable directives implemented through legislation
or ‘soft’ guidelines, conventions or codes of practice (Licciardi & Amirtahmasebi, 2012,
p. 60).
Governments can also employ fiscal measures to implement heritage policy, such
as the financing of public conservation projects or economic incentives for private
heritage building preservation. Heritage regulation should also include rehabilitation
plans that aim for local economic development in order for historic cities to be
protected from poorly regulated rehabilitation initiatives (Licciardi & Bigio, 2010, p. 23).
This is executed through inventories, registration and classification, using tools such as
GIS and periodic surveys. As well as regulating land use and heritage preservation,
regulations should also address property rights, which are often among major obstacles
to rehabilitation (Licciardi & Bigio, 2010, p. 23). In many developed countries with long
patrimonial histories, such as France, the UK and even Italy, many of these regulations
62
exist and are applied. As we shall see, this is not the case in Lebanon and this presents
perhaps the greatest impediment to the successful implementation of both urban
heritage preservation and development projects, and the application of international
‘soft’ laws such as the Historic Urban Landscape. Valuating urban heritage in Lebanon
will not be useful for policy or project design without the integration of regulatory
factors in its methodology.
2.1.2.1 A problem of governance
Diagram 11 – Institutions related to urban heritage in Lebanon
In order to analyse heritage legislation or the lack of it, an overview of the

governmental institutions in charge of it is useful. The Ministry of Culture is a
government ministry formed in 1993, after the Lebanese civil war. It is in charge of
planning cultural and sectorial policy and, as we shall see, its proceedings depend greatly
on the minister in charge. A petition to replace and sanction the former Minister of
Culture, Gaby Layoun, was issued by the Association for the Protection of Lebanese
Heritage, in protest against his many actions against cultural preservation (APLH, 2014).
Actions concerning the destruction of urban heritage included the Minister’s approval
for the demolition of Amin Maalouf’s childhood home in Badaro, ‘for not meeting the
adequate historical, symbolic and architectural heritage criteria’, after having previously
forbidden its demolition three months earlier (APLH, 2014). More recently an open
letter was written to the recently appointed Minister for Culture, Rony Arayji, expressing
the hope that he would sort out the Direction Générale des Antiquités (DGA) and bring
63
change to the cultural domain in Lebanon (Rizkallah, 2014). His response stipulated that
he wished to work with the citizens of Lebanese society to improve the situation and to
preserve and promote Lebanese heritage.
The Direction Générale des Antiquités (DGA)25 is a section of the Ministry of
Culture responsible for the listing of buildings and urban heritage areas on the General
Inventory (Hadman, Lamy-Willing, & Yazigi, 2012). It is also responsible for the
identification and protection of urban fabric affected by the Schémas directeurs
d’Aménagement et d’Urbanisme (SDAU)26 (FischFisch, 2011). It is debatable whether it
fills either of these roles. The DGA itself is not in fact consulted about urban plans, has
no control over urban works and had a dysfunctional governance system with very
limited resources (Akl & Davie, 1999).
The Conseil du Développement et de la Reconstruction (CDR) was created in 1977
as a substitute for the Ministry of Planning. In 2001 the CDR undertook studies for the
establishment of the zoning law in which built heritage is placed in four categories:
natural heritage, archaeological heritage up to the 17th century, rural heritage and urban
heritage from the 18th century to today (Toubekias & Dentzer, 2009; Tyan, 2012). This
classification would have permitted the establishment of a law that recognised both
ancient and modern urban heritage; it was unfortunately, however, not approved.
The Direction Général de l’Urbanisme (DGU), created in 1964 is responsible for
the established urban plans and regulations directed at a territorial plan. Until 2004, the
zoning extent of Lebanon covered only 16% of the territory, with a remaining unplanned
and partially surveyed area representing 83.8% of the territory which has barely evolved
today (UN-Habitat, 2011). The non-regulated parts are entirely free to be built on, with
very few regulations (Tyan, 2012). This lack of regulation gives way to high exploitation
coefficients and the approval of the construction of large streets and highways through
ancient or historic urban areas.
Article 74 of the municipality law of 1977 stipulates that the president of the
municipality has the duty to protect historic monuments (Tyan, 2012). Municipalities are
also meant to contribute financially towards the conservation of monuments belonging
to the state situated in the municipality perimeter (Hanna, 2010). However, few
25
General Direction of Antiquities
26
Outlines of Urban Planning and Development
64
municipalities have any real conception of their heritage and its economic and touristic
potential and consequently local population approves many projects that denaturalise
old fabric, lacking public example. Moreover tensions are created within municipalities
through their two-partite structure where the Municipal Council and the Muhafez,
which is appointed by the Ministry of Interior, often oppose each other (Interview B).
The vice-president of the municipality of Beirut, Nadim Nasri Abourizk, publically
insists that the city is for its people and that it should remain a vibrant entity and not a
museum, addressing the issue of heritage as well as other pressing issues such as lack of
transportation and green spaces (Appendix 2c). However, Nadim Nasri Abourizk’s
declarations can be questioned not only in his capacity as a representative of the
municipality but in his personal actions, as he also works at Samir Khairallah & Partners,
high-end promoters in Beirut which build some of the highest skyscrapers with no
regard for heritage or public urban planning (Interview J). As argued by Mona Fawa, the
municipality does not oppose the destruction of urban heritage, and at the same time its
weak property taxation generates no redistribution for the people, who remain without
public transportation services and lack of useful public spaces.27 The disparity between
the municipality’s declarations and its actions creates mistrust between elected
members and civil society. The Beirut municipality thus pushes against the urban poor.
Another problem arises from the voting system in Lebanon. Those who live in
any given city do not necessarily vote there because the voting system is based on one’s
town of origin (Interview I). Thus many residents do not have the ability to choose their
public representatives, making deputies and municipalities actually interested only in
local owners. Changing the structure would mean breaking the whole sectarian
Lebanese system, which the country does not seem to be close to today (Interview I). It
is thus clear that all the institutions that should be responsible for the protection of
urban heritage lack both the regulations and neutrality to carry out this task. A clear
problem of urban governance is present as well as a defined political blockade through
various party, confessional, economic or private interests.
27
Professor of Urban Planning and Policy at the American University of Beirut, Mona Fawaz intervened at
th
the International Conference, Divercities: a multidisciplinary approach in Beirut, 12 December 2013,
addressing the Municipality.
65
2.1.2.2 A real estate bubble & restraining property legislation
Institutions and regulations inscribe themselves in Lebanon’s economic reality.

Lebanon has one of the highest debt-to-GDP ratios in the world at (158% of GDP) (UN-
Habitat, 2011). Lebanon also suffers from a chronic trade deficit due to lack of industry
and agriculture ($9 billion in 2007, approximately 34% of Lebanon’s GDP) with an
export-to-import ratio of 23.8% in 2007 (Davie, 1999; UN-Habitat, 2011). Despite this,
the balance of payments is positive because of the huge remittances sent from abroad
and the compensation of the economic occurs through real estate where urban heritage
is essentially seen as an obstacle and regulation is not a possibility (Interview I & C).
Indeed, The overall increase in the number of buildings in Lebanon was estimated at
4.03% from 1996 to 2004 (UN-Habitat, 2011). In many ways the notions of urban
heritage and of urban development are antithetical in Lebanon (Interview C). The real-
estate bubble began after the war; in 1992 to 1995 it constituted 10% of GDP (Davie,
1999). The value of the constructed metre went up from $200 in the 1960s to $1,400 at
the beginning of the 1990s. A promoter in Beirut confirmed this to me quite clearly:
‘Nobody prefers to renovate traditional Lebanese houses, apart from the rich who can
afford it. People prefer constructing terrible skyscrapers, it is a question of profit, instead of one
house, you have a 16-storey building which is sold at $500 000, $1 million sometimes $2 million a
storey. Construction fees are about $5 million for the whole skyscraper and although these would
be less a traditional house would only go for $2-3 million. Just calculate.’28
The lack of regulations places urban heritage in a situation where it cannot

compete, in a bullish real-estate market, leading to the confrontation of two possible
policy choices: ‘destroy and develop’ against ‘preserve and develop’. The economic logic
is stronger than patrimonial value even though architectural elements could be
exploited in a commercial logic. The economic pressure is too high and this does not
permit the integration of heritage or the recognition of its true value; in fact heritage is
only one of the indicators of the severity of the situation (Interview L).
Urban heritage does practise self-help in some cases like the Mansion in Kokak el
Blat, but it is a niche in the liberal Lebanese economy with a limited variety of functions
proposed for the uses of such buildings (Akl & Davie, 1999, p. 26). In fact, we must
recognise that this issue did not arise so strongly in countries such as France and Italy
28
The promoter asked to be kept anonymous.
66
because urban heritage regulation was implemented early enough that it never created
a social problem and real-estate speculation formed elsewhere. This goes back to the
problem of history mentioned in Chapter 1.
As mentioned before, property rights are also very limited. The ‘Old Rent Law’
enforces rent control on ‘old landlords’ who receive symbolic incomes while paying
much higher taxes (TimeRime, 2010). It is very difficult, for example, to keep a building
that is worth $1 million in good condition if you only obtain $500 in rent a year (Akl &
Davie, 1999). If you happen to inherit this property, the law asks the owner to pay 12%
in succession fees, a very substantial amount considering it represents about 240 years
of rent. Under these conditions ‘old owners’ are often forced to sell their property to
entrepreneurs, even though the new apartments may not necessarily be cheaper, for
constructions in these areas are usually luxurious and lead to an increase in
gentrification. Due to this pattern of events between owners wanting the right to
dispose of their goods freely for profit and others being forced to sell, urban heritage is
sold and destroyed and entire neighbourhoods are decomposed (Choay, 1992, p. 13).
Many of these old owners are now part of heritage associations, confirming Assar
Lindbeck’s29 remark that ‘next to bombing, rent control is the most effective technique
known so far for destroying the housing stock of cities’ (Library of Economics and
Liberty, 2008).
2.1.2.3 Failed patrimonial policy
The first heritage law in Lebanon 166/LR referred to antiquities. As in many

neighbouring countries it dates from the French Mandate (7/11/1933), and has in fact
never been modernised (Toubekias & Dentzer, 2009; Tyan, 2012). According to the
Antiquities Law, all human artefacts dating from before 1700 A.D. are to be protected by
the state. It also declares that immoveable objects dated after 1700 may also be
preserved if a special public interest from an historic or artistic point of view can be
ascertained (Toubekias & Dentzer, 2009, p. 16). This law can be implemented in two
ways: listing in the inventory and classification.
29
Chairman of the Nobel Prize committee for Economics.
67
Listing is applied upon request of the DGA to the Ministry of Culture who can
register the property on the inventory of national historic monuments. The property
owner would consequently be informed and would have to seek the approval of the
DGA for any alterations; these modifications would have to be carried out with the
agreement of private stakeholders and the DGA (Toubekias & Dentzer, 2009).
Classification has other implications. According to Article 26 of the Antiquities Law,
classification involves a decree from the President of the State through a direct request
of the DGA (Hanna, 2010; Tyan, 2012). Once the classification comes into effect, no
alteration can be allowed without prior approval of the DGA and the private owner
should be indemnified appropriately (Toubekias & Dentzer, 2009). This law is still in
force today with only minor modifications and, as in many developing countries, it only
covers antiquities and monumental heritage from before the 18th century (Vernières,
2012, p.34). It presents many limitations, and although urban heritage may come as part
of its logic it is not directly addressed, making its protection debatable. Moreover,
despite Lebanon’s ratification of the World Heritage Convention, neither the law of 1933
nor any of its bylaws or modifications refers to its implementation (Toubekias & Dentzer,
2009, p. 17) In reality, the law is barely implemented.
Some preoccupation with urban heritage was later seen during Amin Gamayel’s
(1982-88) mandate as president, within laws of urbanism and construction. Two decree-
laws were issued. The law of urbanism 9/9/1983 n°69 requires detailed urban plans for
archaeological areas and for protection of the zones of historic, artistic or ecological
value when establishing urbanism plans, while the law of construction 16/9/1983 n° 148
subjects construction permits and building regulations for buildings of importance to an
accord with the DGA (Toubekias & Dentzer, 2009, p. 15). These laws, however, came
into a problematic urban context.
Master plans for the city had first been established in the 1960s and then in the
1970s, when the Beirut municipality asked the Association Parisienne d’Urbanisme to
establish an urban master plan for the city centre (Toubekias & Dentzer, 2009, p. 15).
But these master plans were not executed because of the war, resulting in a complete
lack of urban planning which endangered any buildings or neighbourhoods worth
preserving. In 1971 the historic city had been classified with a TCE (Total Coefficient of
68
Exploitation) of 6, which is the same TCE as the buildings of La Défense in Paris (Hanna,
2010). Even this coefficient was later suppressed and planning law accorded no
coefficients or formal height restrictions: the sky was the limit.
One solution was found which implemented both a master plan and some re-use
of traditional heritage buildings. The famous real estate company SOLIDERE, created in
1991 gentrified 296 hectares of the ruined centre of Beirut (Davie, 1999). It is
responsible for the preservation of historic buildings but also for the destruction of a
major part of both urban and archaeological Beirut heritage (Hanna, 2010). 85% of the
historic buildings were destroyed, around 1000 buildings with only a few sectors
preserved such as the Etoile piazza (Hanna, 2010). SOLIDERE has been continually
criticised because of its slogan advertising Beirut as the oldest capital in the world,
Hariri’s use of the project for political legitimisation and today for its creation of a sterile
neighbourhood which is not used by the greater part of the population – to the extent
that SOLIDERE introduced cinemas in 2013 to try and attract local frequentation
(Verdeil, 2008).
During the 1990s and the creation of SOLIDERE, six law projects for heritage
conservation highlighting the necessity to give monetary compensation to owners in
order to keep their heritage buildings were prepared without any of them being adopted
(Tyan, 2012). When Ghassan Salamé became Minister of Culture (2000-2003), a
legislative project was developed with the aim of recognising the notion of architectural
value and urban ensemble which should be protected and developed with a master plan
for cities adapted to the Lebanese case (Interview C & I). This new law has been the
subject of on-going parliamentary debate. The proposal went to the Council of Ministers
and the Parliamentary Commission but was then placed in a drawer, as other such
proposals have been.
In 2007 the Ministry of Culture drafted the ‘Protection of heritage buildings and
sites’ Bill. After approval from all the public departments concerned (Directorate
General of Urban Planning -The Supreme Council of Urban Planning, the Ministry of
Finance, Ministry of Interior and Municipalities), this bill was referred to the House of
Representatives under the decree judgment No. 1057 of 24/11/2007. The decree
stipulates:
69
‘In order to reconcile the economic activity represented by the urban movement
on one hand, and preserving the architectural heritage, which is part of the
collective memory of the nation on the other hand, this draft law [wishes] to
encourage the owners to maintain their properties as to encourage the purchase
of old buildings in areas classified under this project and also to maintain them as
they are instead of demolishing them and replacing them with modern
structures.’ (Appendix 3a)
This bill proposed various economic incentives such as compensation amounting

to a maximum of 75% of the area an on which an owner was forbidden to build as it fell
within the protected area, exemption from constructed property tax and funds to carry
out repairs. But the bill was never enacted, even though it was presented again in 2008.
Also in 2008 Law N.37 on cultural goods enlarged the heritage sector to cover
urban fabric, works of art, manuscripts, musical compositions and local crafts (UNESCO,
2014). This law included in its immoveable property ‘structures, landmarks, edifices,
buildings, or part thereof having traditional, historical, scientific, aesthetic, architectural
or symbolic value, whether religious or secular (2008 No.37 Art. 2)’, thus recognising
urban heritage characteristics (International Foundation for Art Research (IFAR), 2008).
It was approved, ensuring a more inclusive definition of heritage and has now been
ratified. However, bylaws were never issued to provide a framework for its operation
and management (Interview J). As yet no precedent has been set for its application,
making it very difficult to be used to protect heritage buildings.
Despite the considerable legal limitations in protecting urban heritage, some
fairly successful stories do exist. For example, the Director of the DGU, Joseph Abdel
Ahad, succeeded in establishing the perimeter of Gemmazye before he retired
(2010)(Interview C). The neighbourhood is now marked with panels stating its traditional
character. This can be seen as the beginning of a solution as it limits new buildings and
unifies urban tissue, for as argued by many experts, preserving urban heritage is only
valuable if it is preserved in ensembles, not one building in the midst of skyscrapers. In
fact several promoters such as Karim Bassil constructed buildings according to the
neighbourhood’s character, re-establishing the value of apartments with a view of the
neighbourhood instead of a view on the sea (Interview C). Heritage real estate thus does
exist in some form today in Beirut, especially in Gemmayze and Mar Mikhael where
activities are centred around heritage buildings. However, some experts argue that one
70
neighbourhood is not enough, and that local consumption is not sufficiently high to
benefit the economy (Interview L). Part of the neighbourhood is also on the verge of
being destroyed, as we shall see in Chapter 3.
Other relative success stories include convincing the Minister of Culture, Salim
Wardeh, in 2010 to freeze all demolitions for six months, and the creation of a public
decree (10/3/2010) to create a committee to exercise oversight of all demolition, which
included two members of the DGA and two external experts (Interviews J & K). The
problem is that, despite the halt in demolition, the lack of a law makes enforcing a
permanent stop to demolition difficult. Moreover, the decree depends on the Minister
himself, and as politicians vary in nature and purpose, the preservation actions of one
Minister for Culture can be easily swept away in a few months by the next minister. And
even though the Council of State can appeal a minister’s decision, it can only do so on
the basis of the Minister’s decision being illegal, which, as we have seen, cannot be
argued in Lebanon.
Table 9 – Indicators of the condition of urban heritage: its social dimensions and governance in
Lebanon
Cultural/Architectural Capital
–– Existence of legislation for urban heritage protection
–– Characteristics of the legislation for urban heritage protection
–+ Existence of local, national or international structures for handling the conservation
valuation of urban heritage
++ Capacity for mobilising international technical or financial aid. Previous experience
–– Existence of public (local, national, international), financial arrangements for the
conservation/valuation of heritage. Direct and Indirect aid.
–+ Existence of private financial provisions to finance heritage conservation/valuation
–– Existence of fiscal provisions favouring the conservation/valuation of urban
heritage
–– Existence of legal and institutional support favouring the conservation/valuation of
urban heritage
–– Existence of legislation on old housing
–– Labelling or membership of urban heritage to national or international World
Heritage type status
–+ Existence and availability of data
*Diagram expanded from Vernières (2012) to Appendix 1
Today there are a few hundred buildings that belong to huge promoter
companies that just want to demolish them and rebuild (Interviews E & J). Often, when
such companies are forced to halt demolition they become desperate and slowly
71
demolish the building in question over a few months: they begin by destroying one
structural element and then its supportive structures until finally the building either
collapses, is torn down on a rainy day, or is declared to be a danger to its environment
and that therefore it must be taken down (Interview E & J).
2.1.2.4 Classification inventories
In the light of the difficulties of applying or constructing regulations that protect

urban heritage, let us consider the nation’s attempts at classifying buildings in
inventories. From 1934 to 2002 the number of monuments and architectural elements
the DGA classified through decree on the General Inventory of Historical Monuments
was 37, the number of elements listed through orders was 1,367: only 2.7% of
monuments are therefore listed by legal decree (Toubekias & Dentzer, 2009). The use of
the inventory was in fact minimal because it opened up rights to compensation and
damages, which have not been accorded to any owner since 1995 (Tyan, 2012).
Moreover, listings have limited legal functions as they can be stopped by ministerial
order (Interview E). The DGA’s inventory is quite unsystematic. The old souk of Jounieh
has 100 homes listed on the inventory, Saïda’s historic centre only has 10, Tyr has more
that Saïda although the number remains unspecified and the historic port of El-Mina
Tripoli only has 1 (Interview F). The DGA does not have the resources to carry out a full
inventory, which would be directly tied to urban plans. The DGA’s solution is therefore
to state that all historic cities should be ‘protected’ and that approval should be sought
for any demolition. However, the lack of a law, as stated earlier, makes this
recommendation unenforceable.
In 1995, at the request of the Ministry of Culture with Miche Eddé as Minister,
1,016 houses built between 1860 and 1943 were inventoried in the peri-central area of
Beirut and proposed for classification (Tyan, 2012) (Appendix 3a). The list formed the
first reference in a census of heritage buildings in Beirut, and therefore the basis on
which the Ministry of Culture requested the Governor of the city to take temporary
measures to freeze the demolition of the heritage buildings. This measure led to a
massive campaign organised by the owners of the real estate concerned, in which they
demanded that the state either overturn its decision or provide compensation for
injustice and subsequent damage caused by the freezing (Davie, 1999).
72
Giving way to socio-political pressure, the CDR established a new more restricted
inventory, whereby 592 properties were freed from registration and only 459 buildings
divided into five categories (A, B, C, D & E) remained on the list of real estate frozen
from demolition (Davie, 1999) (Appendix 3c,b).30 However 3/3/1999, D and E were
eliminated from the list by official decree No. 32 on the basis of the lack of the cultural
component (Appendix 3a)(Interview E). A decree was also later signed that closed this
inventory, meaning that no institutional entity can now add buildings to be protected
(Interview E & J). The Minister can only refuse destruction today. Moreover, in 2010 the
Council of Ministers decided to commission the CDR to conduct a comprehensive study
of the buildings under frozen demolition, recommending the release of buildings not
having a heritage component, which can be supposed as preparation to release buildings
from their protected state (Appendix 3a).
It is interesting in this context of classification of properties frozen from
demolition that the method of five groups discarded the principle of the protection of
groups of buildings and restored the principle of the protection of individual buildings
going against definitions of urban fabric (Appendix 3). This reflects negatively on the
unity of the few remaining traditional neighbourhoods in the city of Beirut. Furthermore,
experts have often argued that preserving individual buildings serves no purpose either
aesthetically or for development issues (Interview I). The five-category classification,
moreover, included elements completely irrelevant to architectural merit, such as who
owned the building, which suggests a possible complication in determining into which
category each building was assigned.
The initial list of 1,016 buildings was furthermore in no way exhaustive; in fact
experts estimated the number of buildings to be preserved to be much higher. Today,
experts esteem that 90% of buildings that should have been preserved have been
destroyed, especially the ones dating the 1960s: Art Deco buildings never entered a
Lebanese definition of urban heritage, for example (Interview E). The survey carried out
confirmed that all respondents were aware of demolitions, even though their knowledge
30
They were distributed based on the following four areas:
- ‘een M'reisa – Meenae Al Hisn – Al Kantari - Spears – Al- Thareef
- Zu’ae El Blat –Al Bashoura – Al Basta Attahta
- Ashrafieh – Al Yasou’eya - Abdul Wahab Al Engleezi – Furn Al Hayek - Nicola Mar (South)
- Saint Maron - Gemmayzé - Mar Nicola (Sursock)
73
of the quantity of demolitions differed widely. Respondents were also mostly aware of
destruction inside Beirut rather than in secondary cities, confirming people’s awareness
of the capital’s strong real-estate pressure.
Diagram 13 – Survey respondents’ impressions of urban heritage degradation
It is therefore clear that there is an absence of urban heritage designation and

global heritage policy in Lebanon. The situation has become so severe in Beirut that
experts often believe the battle for the capital is lost: the projection into the uncertain
national future is such that the past has been left behind (Interview L). There is a serious
lack of urban planning and measures and decisions are taken according to the people in
power and without any global plan. This analysis also confirms that a greater problem
exists for urban heritage in Beirut than in secondary cities where people are either more
attached to their heritage or it is simply a question of having more space on which to
build (Interview E). The differences in approaches between Beirut and secondary
Lebanese cities will be further addressed in Chapter 3.
Urban heritage development projects carried out in Lebanon are therefor placed
in a context of extensive local limitations. A valuation of urban heritage needs to take
these issues into consideration in order to adapt its methodology accordingly. There are
questions to be asked: should urban heritage valuation consider the existence of
heritage laws when they are scarcely applied? How do we adapt valuation when
registration or listing is clearly limited? Should private properties be considered to a
74
greater extent than in a traditional patrimonial framework because of their lack of

official designation?
The lack of designation leads to the question of appropriation, which would aid in
the determination of what heritage should be evaluated in order to provide policy or
development programme recommendations. In order to test the separation between
designation and appropriation in Lebanon, the survey asked respondents who they
believed most appropriated urban heritage in Lebanon.
Diagram 14 – Survey respondents’ impressions of appropriation in Lebanon
Only 12.2% responded ‘local government’; 54.88% responded ‘local population’,

demonstrating people’s recognition that government involvement in urban heritage
preservation is limited. Indeed the open answers included responses such as: ‘The law is
very weak and although there is an updated draft ready to be voted on, it stays in the
drawers of the parliament. Minister of culture is not competent enough to be in this
ministry and there is corruption in the government and the municipality’ and ‘Local
population are the only memory of places in Lebanon. They are what remain of the
Lebanese cultural identity and heritage. They are the keys to understand the Lebanese
culture and local government should use those keys instead of making them disappear.’
A substantial proportion of respondents (32.93%) also responded that neither
parties actually appropriated heritage; this was also reflected in the open responses.
Respondents said that both parties had more pressing issues and that only a minority
were actually concerned enough to take action. A large part of Lebanese society does
75
not regard heritage as an asset; they see urban heritage as a luxury under the pressures
of the current economic recession and a subject beyond the scope because of political
institutions’ lack of ability to channel interest (Akl & Davie, 1999, p. 148). Its value is
consequently diminished because of a lack of social demand, the social value of urban
heritage being limited to a sterile nostalgic recognition. This does not, however, mean
that urban heritage is without value in Lebanon.
Experts confirm that 90% of Lebanese people are not sensitive to heritage and
less than 1% of the population actually takes action (Interview E). This can be proved
very simply through the difference between Facebook involvement and actual
involvement. On Saturday 1st March 2014 a demonstration took place against the Fouad
Boutros Highway project which will be discussed in Chapter 3. This project aims to
construct a highway through a traditional neighbourhood, one of the last in Beirut, and
in the process it will destroy 32 heritage landmarks, endanger 33 more, and uproot
thousands of square metres of green space in the Ashrafieh, Hekmeh and Mar Mikhael
districts. The Facebook event had 1,600 attendees; fewer than 300 people were present
at the actual demonstration.
Despite the limitations of public involvement, NGOs have attempted to make up
for the government’s lack of institutional designation. Let us therefore address the roles
of associations and NGOs in order to further the integration of context in urban heritage
valuation.
2.2 APPROPRIATION THROUGH CIVIL SOCIETY

2.2.1 Is Lebanon appropriating its urban heritage?
‘C'est insupportable, Giorgio , mais ce Liban a disparu, du moins sur le terrain. Il

n'en reste que les images, les souvenirs, les reliques, dont nous sommes, en
quelques sortes, les gardiens.’ (Member of Save Beirut Heritage)
An increasing number of associations have been addressing heritage issues in the

post-war years and scholars, such as Verdeil (2008), have argued that Lebanon is a weak
state with a strong society. The process of appropriation has been said to be specific to
territory because of its strong identity component (Vernières, 2011). In each case, the
nature of the process is variable according to its initiators, the logic of its actors and the
conflicts between actors and the forms of local appropriation, making a process
76
intricately tied to territory (Vernières, 2011, p. 11). Heritage appropriation occurs for
various reasons, but in the case of Lebanon, heritage appropriation is key to its survival,
despite this method’s obvious limitations of being easily halted by the government
(Interview E & J). Appropriation seems to occur both for economic and touristic reasons,
but primarily as a drastic measure to protect the little urban heritage left due to the
limited influence of national law.
Heritage associations, NGOs and dedicated specialists confront each other to try
and define their own objectives for their heritage, or to attempt to find ways of escaping
regulations that endanger heritage (Akl & Davie, 1999). Between 1990 and 1997 the
number of associations more than doubled from 1,586 before the war to 3,503 after the
war (Akl & Davie, 1999, p. 144). A study carried out by Misk (in Akl & Davie, 1999, p.144)
counted 32 associations in Beirut, 11 in Mount Lebanon, 12 in the North, 11 in the
Beqa’a and 12 in the South that implicated Tourâth or heritage in their work. Although
this movement expanded at a late stage when degradation and destruction had already
been extensive, thanks to the associations the Lebanese population has progressively
discovered the importance of their heritage material, not only limited to archaeology.
The movement has also increased people’s interest in the defence and rehabilitation of
their neighbourhoods, landscapes and urban environments (Akl & Davie, 1999, p. 11)
The Lebanese understanding of heritage has thus evolved beyond the official
classification of listed monuments to incorporate new social demands, linked to a loss of
faith with the government (Akl & Davie, 1999).
77
Table 10 – Associations and heritage related NGOs in Lebanon31
Name of Association Date Target of Work

Pre-war Post-war Municipal Beirut Greater Beirut Mount Leb. South North Beqaa
NGOs
Association for the Protection fo Sites 1960 x x x x x x
and Ancient Dwellings (APSAD)
Association for the Protection of the 2010 x x x x x x
Lebanese Heritage (APLH)
Association for Construction and 1956 x
Restoration of Mosques in Lebanon
Association pour la sauvegarde du 2009 x
patrimoine de la ville de Tripoli (ASPT)
Beirut Heritage 1991 x
Benevolent Association for the revival of 1990 x x x x x x
Lebanese heritage
Biladi 2008 x x x x x x
Defending rights of Beirut Committee 1992 x x
Development Board in Beirut 1995 x
Green Environment Association 1995 x x x x x x
International Committee for the 1981 x
Protection of the City of Tyre
Lebanese Environment Forum 1992 x x x x x x
Lebanese History Association 1994 x x x x x x
National Heritage Association 1996 x x x x x x
Plan B Association 1993 x x
Save Beirut Heritage 2010 x x
Non-registered activists
Achrafieh Stairs N/A x
Occupy Beirut Heritage N/A x x
TOTAL = 17 3 15 16 12 8 9 9 8
31
These tables are expanded from Zeina Misk’s article in Akl & Davie (1999) and are not exhaustive but aim at creating an overview of relevant NGOs and associations.
78
Name of Association TARGETS Activities

Heritage Env. Devel. Protection Awareness Revival Rehabilitation Cooperation Funding Defense
NGOs
Association for the Protection fo Sites x x x x x x
and Ancient Dwellings (APSAD)
Association for the Protection of the x x x x x x
Lebanese Heritage (APLH)
The Association for Construction and x
Restoration of Mosques in Lebanon
Association pour la sauvegarde du x x x
patrimoine de la ville de Tripoli (ASPT)
Beirut Heritage x x x x x
Benevolent Association for the revival of x x x x x
Lebanese heritage
Biladi x x x x x
Defending rights of Beirut Committee x x x x
Development Board in Beirut x x x
Green Environment Association x x x x x
International Committee for the x x x x x
Protection of the City of Tyre
Lebanese Environment Forum x x x x
Lebanese History Association x x
National Heritage Association x x x x x x
Plan B Association x x x
Save Beirut Heritage x x x x x x
Non-registered activists
Achrafieh Stairs x x x x x x
Occupy Beirut Heritage x x x x
TOTAL = 17 14 9 3 9 16 5 5 10 5 2
79
Although the range of activities that should be undertaken by such associations

in regard to heritage assets are multiple and include preservation,32 conservation,33
renovation or restoration,34 adaptive reuse,35 area conservation planning and historic
environment initiatives,36 their activity is restrained (Licciardi & Amirtahmasebi, 2012;
Throsby, 2010). One should not relate the increase of associations to their activities or
the effectiveness or tangibility of their actions (Akl & Davie, 1999, p. 144). It has been
alleged by many heritage experts that some of these associations are literally a waste of
time. Some do take action. APSAD, for instance, was responsible for the initiation of the
list of Beirut properties mentioned earlier (Akl & Davie, 1999, p. 145). Today, the most
active associations that have still not lost hope seem to be Save Beirut Heritage and
APLH; we shall therefore briefly discuss their actions and limitations.
2.2.2 Two Examples: Save Beirut Heritage & Association for the Protection of Lebanese
Heritage (APLH or APPL)
Save Beirut Heritage and APLH are both associations initially launched on
Facebook, later registered in 2010 (APLH, 2010; Save Beirut Heritage, 2010). Save Beirut
Heritage was founded by activist Naji Esther with the aim to preserving architectural
heritage within Beirut (Save Beirut Heritage, 2014). Their Facebook group now has
12,000 members and they operate a hotline and an iPhone and iPad app to monitor
properties for illegal demolition, registering buildings in danger, saved buildings and
already demolished ones in Beirut37.
APLH is a civil association founded by Pascale Ingea with a larger view for the
preservation of the Lebanese heritage; it identifies itself as non-religious and non-
political and aims at the preservation and promotion of cultural and historical aspects of
Lebanese identity (APLH, 2010). APLH has intervened in Beirut (Mar Mikhael, Jardin des
Jesuites), Jbeil, Batroun, Bachoura and other place (Interview E). APLH has also launched
32
Preservation: ensuring the continued existence of the asset
33
Conservation: caring for the asset and maintaining it in proper condition   according to accepted
professional standards
34
Renovation or restoration: returning an asset that has deteriorated to its original condition
35
Adaptive reuse: ensuring continuity of use through minimal changes to the   asset
36
Area conservation planning and historic environment initiatives: these ensure the value of historic
buildings and sites to the economy of whole areas (UK through the London Historic Environment
initiative).
37
Online version of IPhone app consulted on http://savebeirutheritage.org
80
an app and participative map on the Internet in order to take an inventory of threatened
heritage, both natural and built (APLH, 2010). The objective of the map being to make
citizens aware of the need to safeguard Lebanese heritage while constituting a database.
63 reports have been made since the map launched at the beginning of 2014,
strategically divided in categories such as ‘traditional classical heritage buildings’,
‘modern heritage building’, ‘public square’, ‘stairs’, ‘public garden’, ‘bridges and roads’
(APLH, 2010).38 It provides a much more accurate and thorough inventory than the one
provided by Save Beirut Heritage, which is not enable to upload information, yet their
application is more well-known. APLH laments the destruction of urban heritage but
states that the only way to avoid destruction in to undertake the difficult task of
changing mentalities for everyone participates in destruction. Raja Noujaim, current
leader of APLH said ‘this is why we try to implicate the citizen in preservation by inviting
citizens to share reports. The picture of a site, its description or a link is a start’
(Interview E).
Both organisations have completed many lobbying campaigns, organising
petitions and demonstrations. They are both engaged through online activism,
awareness and media attention and they attempt to converse with governmental
institutions to obtain the freezing of property destruction. The pace of demolition has
however risen because of lack of governance and institutional support. Save Beirut
Heritage estimates the remaining traditional buildings to be fewer than 300 (Interview
J). The associations’ efforts resulted in a halt of the demolition of several buildings,
which unfortunately was only a temporary ministerial decision. Both associations have
recently fought against the destruction of a characteristic piece of urban fabric, the
Massad Stairs, with a demonstration on 14th November 2013, and they have been very
involved in the fight against the construction of the Fouad Boutros Highway together
with the informal group ‘Achrafieh Stairs’. They also both accuse culture minister Gaby
Layoun of being responsible for the destruction of countless traditional buildings, more
than 100 in the last 2 years (Interview E & J).
These many actions certainly upgrade urban heritage’s social and cultural values
but the associations’ actions are extremely limited because of the continual institutional
38
Participative map consulted on https://lebaneseheritage.crowdmap.com
81
barriers. The presence of bureaucratic obstacles and corruption has meant that ‘if
previously [they] were fighting against illegal demolitions, now [they are] trying to face
official illegal decisions, especially in the absence of a DGA director’ (Interviews E & J).
The effectiveness of such associations is therefore no longer dependant on the
coordination of their actions, because of the multiple barriers they face.
The associations can themselves be criticised; they are often too implicated in
their prerogatives to give representative impressions of the situation, and they get
wedged into identity issues without underlining the economic gains of preserving
heritage, which limits the impact of their voice to the government. Save Beirut Heritage
can further be criticised for their insistence on exposure while making their other actions
secondary. On the other hand, little can be done other than registering and reporting
demolitions and trying to stop further ones, which they do attempt to do (Interviews E &
L). We can therefore conclude that, although mobilisation and exposure for urban
heritage has grown, Lebanese society in its totality has not mobilised. Moreover, the
activism that is present is extremely hindered by the lack of patrimonial policies
discussed earlier, and the lack and corruption of governance that not only limits
institutional designation but obstructs its local appropriation as well.
2.2.3 A sectarian society: an inevitable question of identity?
In the consideration of the appropriation of heritage, one must also comment on

the stratification and sectarianism of Lebanese society which results in the lack of a
common identification of heritage, urban or other, or in common approaches to
heritage (Akl & Davie, 1999, p. 21). The different approaches can be divided not only
socially but according to faith, which is still a very present issue in Lebanon.
The Christian community is considered to set store by real-estate profit, showing
a general disregard for heritage in the greater part of the population (Interviews A & L).
The Qadisha valley monks are among those who allow the most damage to their own
sacred valley for their own profit (Interview A). The Sunni section of the population also
has little respect for heritage, as their principles do not value past objects. The Shiite
often represent the poorest parts of the population, who have little concern for
patrimonial issues (Interview A). There is, however, a general accord among experts that
the Druze population in Lebanon is more attentive to heritage; whether because of their
82
belief in reincarnation or the consideration for natural or built things, heritage is

sacralised by this part of the population (Interviews A & L). The Chouf is consequently a
well protected area; the Druze, however, only represent 5% of the current Lebanese
population. It is therefore clear that, although there may be a division in approaches
towards urban heritage among the different sections of Lebanese society, the majority
of the population, of whichever faith, does not concern itself with its protection
(Interview J).
Our analysis of both institutional and civil society designation of urban heritage
has proved that Lebanon is lacking in the pre-requisites Lindblom & Paludan-Müller
(2012) argue to be essential for the successful implementation of urban heritage and
development projects: policy and civil society mobilisation. Lebanon may not lack the
associative initiative but it does lack the aptitude of its elected members to coordinate
and stimulate such projects (Vernières, 2011). The institutional limitation and civil
society difficulties on impacting policies and decision-making have us turn to other
actors in order to analyse actual physical interventions on urban heritage. Considering
physical intervention will shed light on other elements to be considered in urban
heritage valuation, and determine examples of best or worse practice. This is an attempt
to consider patrimonial exploitation in Lebanon beyond its limited vision. Let us
therefore make an overview analysis of the outcomes of the World Bank Cultural
Heritage and Development (CHUD) project which is being implemented in Lebanon.
2.3 URBAN HERITAGE AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN LEBANON

2.3.1 Cultural Heritage and Urban Development (CHUD)
The CHUD (P050529) project is part of the World Bank’s MENA regional strategy
for Cultural Heritage and Development. The project was an initiative undertaken by the
Government of Lebanon through the CDR, placing itself in the World Bank’s Country
Assistance Strategy (CAS) (Toubekias & Dentzer, 2009, p. 28). The CHUD project cost a
total of $61.89 million, $31.85 million of which were provided by World Bank, with
further financial support provided by the AFD, the French Government and the Italian
cooperation; it started in 2003 and received extensions until 2015 (Licciardi & Bigio,
2010)(Interview C). The project aimed to protect, rehabilitate and revitalise 5 secondary
Lebanese cities – Tyr, Saïda, Byblos, Baalbeck and Tripoli – that presented a series of
83
damages, decay, poverty and economic stagnation resulting from the civil war
(Toubekias & Dentzer, 2009, p. 28). Its urban components, addressing the rehabilitation
of historic centres and their infrastructures amount to $42,69 million.
CHUD has recently received additional financing to cover overrun costs and the
project’s overall financing now amounts to $117 million, almost doubling its cost (World
Bank, 2012; World Bank, 2013). The reasons behind these additional funds reflect the
core of the limitations to the implementations of this project. Not only had the project
under estimated the cost of investments, but detailed feasibility studies were not
finalised prior to appraisal, referring back to the importance of ex-ante evaluations for
such projects (World Bank, 2012). Moreover, Lebanon’s unstable economic and political
situation and the country’s high inflation between 2003-2010 made construction
material prices rise (World Bank, 2012).
CHUD had two main components that directly affect urban heritage in
Lebanon. The first is the project’s aim to rehabilitate historic city centres and improve
urban Infrastructure (Licciardi & Bigio, 2010). This component aimed to result in:
improving public space; the creation, equipment and management of tourist circuits;
conservation and adaptive re-use of monuments and buildings; rehabilitation of historic
housing stock, management of vehicular access to historic centres; improving facilities
for water, electricity and the promotion of new productive services (Licciardi & Bigio,
2010). These all-encompassing approaches indicate the inclusive aims of the project: a
comprehensive rehabilitation of communal parts of buildings in order to generally raise
living standards (Licciardi & Bigio, 2010, p. 27).
Its other relevant component was institutional strengthening, including a
review of Lebanese legislation and DGA organisation as well as a proposal for a national
heritage inventory which would identify the problems and threats to the preservation of
all heritage in Lebanon (A.R.S. Progetti, September, 2002). Other tasks included planning
a budget, heritage valorisation, awareness and outreach, training programs and GIS
(geographic information system) (World Bank, 2012). The resources were also allocated
to assisting municipalities in setting up dedicated urban units and acquiring
administrative and technical abilities to manage rehabilitation processes (Licciardi &
Bigio, 2010, p. 21).
84
The objectives of this second component were crucial for future successes of
urban heritage’s use for development in light of the earlier discussions. However, it is
safe to say that the objectives were never fulfilled, apart from the undertaking of a
legislative and institutional analysis. Only 7.96% of the budget was allocated to
institutional strengthening, and the complicated political context made the
recommendations from the studies difficult to implement. Consequently, urban heritage
in Lebanon still rests on the will of the appointed individuals such as the Minister of
Culture and local mayor’s (Interview A & C) (World Bank, 2013)
While the objective of urban rehabilitation was shared across the five-
implementation sites, interventions in each city varied according to local characteristics
and its successes also varied widely (Interview A & C). Byblos is perhaps where the
project was most successful: the rehabilitation and maintenance of existing buildings
was carried out and the aims to increase commercial and residential activities through
private investment and regulating rising real estate values have been effective (Licciardi
& Bigio, 2010, p. 24). In Tripoli, experts argue that despite the rehabilitation work
initiated, the corruption and political tension have resulted in limited success stories
(Interview C & I). Mistakes were also made: those who conducted the studies often did
not implement the projects that resulted from them; consequently the agencies that
supervised implementation did not respect plans or materials chosen (Tabet & Debs,
Janvier, 2002)(Interview I). Moreover eco-political interferences limited what the
architects could plan: the will to create pedestrian spaces that would have protect the
facades of the historic town and would have created public social space were overrun
(Interview I).
In Tyre the project aimed to create a dialogue between the sea and the
archaeological site by installing a path through the historic city (Interview A). This path
now exists but is already severely degraded. Although evidence of the effects of CHUD
are present in the old city of Tyre – the conservation of facades, the restoration of
elements of the urban fabric such as the Sunni Mosque and the city’s ‘new door’ and the
completion of Tyre's new vegetable market – the local reaction was quite negative,
demonstrating a lack of local implication (Interview A). The shortcomings in local
governance led to the further marginalization of the inhabitants of the old urban core
85
and despite the said protection of Tyre, destructions and transformations have recently
taken place such as the destruction of the port fishermen house (Interview A).
In Saïda, CHUD successfully contributed to the rehabilitation of the souk,
including the rehabilitation of one the principle squares ‘Bab Al-Saraya’ and its
surroundings (Al-Hagla, 2010). Its different objectives included the rehabilitation and
renewal of old pedestrian routes within the old city, the adaptive re-use of old historical
buildings, and the promotion of local food and drink industries (Al-Hagla, 2010). A
heritage trail was also implemented as an application of a ‘bottom-up’ approach
favouring heritage tourism. However despite the effort of the CHUD and more locally
the Audi Foundation, the residents of the old city are highly impoverished, which reflects
directly on their housing conditions (Al-Hagla, 2010). Thus although the cultural values of
the existent urban fabric of Saïda can be considered sustainable some of its other
dimensions may not be sustainable.
Overall even the World Bank’s report considers the progress in the achievement
of objectives and overall implementation process ‘Moderately Satisfactory’ (World Bank,
2013). It evaluated project implementation as been affected by the delay in additional
financing loan. It also underlined the minimal increase in tourism and local employment
to Lebanon’s current political and security situation (World Bank, 2013). The rising
property values were also considered misleading because of the influx of refugees
(World Bank, 2013). The value of indicators for pedestrian areas and public squares has
actually decreased, and although the valued of indicators for the facades of historic
buildings have improved this is mainly in Byblos and not other cities (World Bank, 2013).
It is thus clear that although CHUD has been key in sustaining the urban heritage of
secondary cities in Lebanon, its implementation had faced barriers due to the context of
the country confirming that context must be taken into in project methodology.
86
CHAPTER 3 – ILLUSTRATING THE VERNIÈRES (2012) GRID IN LEBANON
‘When people destroy a building in the Arab World they don’t really have a value
for it’ George Arbid.39
This chapter aims to illustrate the Lebanese case study having now analysed urban
heritage’s context in Lebanon. Resulting from expert interviews and local fieldwork, this
chapter will provide a commentary of the different values of urban heritage in Lebanon.
For each section our commentary will give examples from Beirut and a secondary city,
Saïda or Tripoli. In order to consider the investment and degradation of Lebanese urban
heritage, this thesis will further consider two contrasting examples which will have
positive and negative effects on Beirut’s urban heritage if implemented: The Fouad
Boutros Highway and the Ile de France’s Liaison Douce.
3.1.1 ANALYSIS IN TERMS OF STOCK

3.1.2 The territorial Framework
3.1.2.1 Territorial description
Map 1 – Beirut Constituencies
39 th
Meeting at the Modern Heritage Observatory (MoHO), 26 Oct 2013, Beirut.
87
This illustration will consider the central Beirut already presented in the previous
Chapter. However for the purpose of urban heritage’s sustainability discussion, it will
address the neighbourhoods of Mar Mikhael and Damascus road more specifically. Mar
Mikhael is a neighbourhood situated on the edge of the centre of Beirut between
Gemmayze (west), Bourj Hammoud (east), Geitawi (south) and the sea (Zouain, 2011). It
is more commonly referred to as the area between the Electricity of Lebanon building
and the Vendôme Cinema that has now been replaced by a 19-story building. It is a
socially rich neighbourhood, and originally an extension of the Armenian area where the
side streets were very lived public spaces.
Mar Mikhael is one of the Beirut’s neighbourhoods that still evokes the history
and evolution of the architecture of the city, from the Ottoman Empire to the French
Mandate (Zouain, 2011). Along the main road of the neighbourhood, the rue d’Armenie,
one can still find many examples of traditional (19th century) to neo-traditional houses
(1930s) (FischFisch, 2011). It is one of the only neighbourhoods in Beirut today that still
demonstrates the historic, social and economic value of urban heritage as it has not
been excessively destroyed or transformed (Zouain, 2011). The last few years have
changed Mar Mikhael radically: it now hosts artists, creative industries and a growing
party scene. Its architecture and the typology of the neighbourhood have contributed to
the neighbourhood’s evolution since 2008, with the concentrations of creative activities,
a leisure industry and a varied commercial structure. The installation of all these
activities has given the neighbourhood an added value, which has led to its
gentrification. The price of real-estate has consequently risen, multiplying five or six
times since 2005 with apartment prices starting between 3000 and 3200 dollars per m2
(Boudisseau, 2012).
Damascus Road on the other hand mark the ex demarcation line of the city
during the Lebanese civil war. It is the home of Saint Joseph University, the Lebanese
National Museum, the Mineral Museum, the French Embassy and the General
Directorate of Security. It is an extremely busy roads because of the concentration of
institutions along it, but it is poorly equipped with other services such as restaurants.
88
Map 2 – Mar Mikhael (red) and Damascus Road (blue)
Saïda is very different from Beirut and is a particular case study in Lebanon
because despite the creation of the coastline highway it undergone a surprising local
urban reuse. Capital of the South of Lebanon, Saïda is situated 40km from Beirut and is a
principally Sunni city. The historic city is encircled by a wall and spreads compressed
around the souk, it occupies 6,6% (20 ha) of the surface of the city (Al-Harithy, Dabaj, &
Haidar, 2013). The historic core is formed of souks, 10 neighbourhoods that bear the
names of the original inhabitants (Souk al-Najjarine (carpenters), al-Haddadin
(blacksmiths), and al-Kindarjiyya (shoemakers), of monuments (of Ottoman and Mamluk
influence) and a stock of historic homes (UNESCO, 2001). The city is characterized by its
narrow streets, its vaulted passages and bas-relief decorations (Interview H). The area is
reserved for pedestrians and has no known modern planning intervention. It offers
traditional urban living, both in public buildings (mosques, hammams, khans) and private
houses (Debbané Palace, Hammoud Palace) and in its narrow streets (Interview H).
Tripoli historic centre dates from the Mameluke period and is places at the foot
of the citadel of Saint-Gilles, enclosed by the modern city and its commercial streets. It is
a unique example among Lebanese medieval sites, remarkable for its compact urban
fabric rich civil and religious monuments, with its famous caravanserais (khans) and
souks.
89
Map 3 – Saïda
3.1.2.2 Territorial issues
In the consideration of a Lebanese territorial framework for urban heritage

valuation and consequently development projects, we must start from the pre-condition
that neither international nor national urban heritage protection exists unlike previous
examples considered by the Vernières (2012) grid. In this context it is particularly
necessary to incorporate both elements from the market economy in order to measure
direct and indirect use values and elements from environmental economics to valuate
non-use values.
Urban heritage can accordingly be divided into 3 categories under the inclusive
definition of urban heritage which includes not only single buildings but building
ensembles and public spaces such as streets, stairs, parks and entire neighbourhoods
(Zouain, 2001)(Interview M):40
40
This three-partite division of Lebanese urban-heritage is a result of reflection between Georges Zouain,
Maria Mounzer and myself at GAIA-heritage, and was included in an AFD proposal for the valuation of
urban-heritage in Lebanon.
90
1. Units of public built heritage inscribed on the national inventory
2. Units of private built heritage inscribed on the national inventory or where

demolition has been frozen by ministerial order without expropriation and
compensation
3. Architectural units or units of built heritage non inscribed on the national

inventory but considered as heritage by society who is attempting to avoid this
destruction.
A full valuation of urban heritage would have to consider all of these categories
and adapt their valuation accordingly. It is a question of adapting the identification of
stock to context in order to ensure an efficient valuation method. Categories 2 and 3 can
in no case be ignored in the Lebanese context because as we have seen urban heritage is
generally badly protected, very few buildings are actually inscribed on official lists, and
protection from the state is inexistent.
In considering private urban built heritage that is not on an inventory, and thus
the majority of urban heritage in Lebanon, the consideration of market economic values
is pertinent even if they are misguiding of a building’s universal value (as a unique and
irreplaceable object) for they permit the identification of the gap between a building’s
established market value and its interpreted universal value. The option value also
comes into play, referring to the possibility of not having considered the future value of
a building. Such a study would identify the compensation necessary to preserve urban
heritage in heritage policy free country. This approach has to nevertheless be
compensated by the consideration of non-use values estimated through environmental
economic methods or expert opinions. A more traditional environmental valuation
would obviously be applied to the few listed buildings present in Lebanon, using the
common methods applied in welfare economics, taking into consideration both these
buildings’ use and non-use values.
It is a question of adapting valuation according to the built heritage considered in
each city: indeed this approach would alter from Beirut to secondary cities where urban
heritage in historic cities is often much better protected because of lower real-estate
pressure (Interview M). Considering both monetary and non-monetary valuation would
enable to create an ensemble of indicators adapted to each category of heritage, this
91
would also enable to consider the different approaches to be adopted in a future

heritage and development projects. The limitation of such an approach would be, as
pointed out by Vernières (2012) previously, the overlapping of information.
This method, would allow the integration of context in urban valuation
methodology. In a developed context, it is possible to preserve heritage buildings
without preventing economic development by finding fiscal measures, which will incite
owners to preserve, but in a complex context, one must consider the specificities of its
problems in order to suggest applicable urban policies and projects (Interview M). The
correct division or urban heritages is the initial step, in order to allow precise valuation
and applicable recommendations for future projects.
3.1.2 The different dimensions of stock (economic, cultural, social, environmental)
3.1.2.1 The economic dimension of urban heritage
The economic dimension of urban heritage in terms of stock compromises

productive structure and infrastructure. In terms of productive structure, job volume,
production of crafts and industrial activities, shops, tourist activity and public services
are to be considered as well as the consideration of heritage related professional
(Vernières et al, 2012, p.122). Informal activities should also be considered. This
component is difficult to calculate in a city such as Beirut because of the disparity of the
remaining urban heritage and simpler in secondary cities such as Saïda or Tripoli where
the historic part of the city is better delimited. The tourist activity cannot be considered
beyond Lebanon’s declining tourist sector at the moment.
For the case of Beirut, we can however illustrate the economic dimension in Mar
Mikhael. There has been wide adaptive reuse of heritage buildings in this
neighbourhood (Serageldin, 1999, p. 19). The neighbourhood now boasts around 60
creative industries and 50 varied commercial structures such as Secteur 75, a bar and
restaurant in a traditional heritage building.
92
This adaptive reuse has kept and developed the socio-economic fabric of Mar
Mikhael, it has kept this district living and functioning and the destruction of traditional
buildings is not as extensive as in other areas although it may just be a matter of time.
The concept of adaptive reuse for economic profitability was confirmed by the survey
respondents: 34.88% believed that the most economically advantageous option for
damaged urban heritage was to ‘renovate the building keeping its main original
structures but ensuring a modern functionality for it (restaurant, café, cinema, housing
etc.)’ (Diagram 15 – Q11). A tension in economic profitability and preservation was
41
These maps are courtesy of GAIA-heritage, s.a.l.
93
noticed however (see Diagram 15, difference between Q10 and Q11). The same options
were given to respondents in asking what the overall best option or the most
economically advantageous option is for historic cities and adaptive re-use of urban
heritage was a preferred answer when respondents were asked about economic
advantages than when they were asked about heritage’s overall best option.
Diagram 1542 – Survey respondents’ impressions on the adaptive re-use of urban heritage
The economic value of the historic centre of secondary cities is often

misinterpreted, and its commercial potential undervalued despite the CHUD project and
the studies that have been carried out (Akl & Davie, 1999, p. 22). The ex-ante study
completed for the rehabilitation and revitalisation of the historic town of Tripoli for
example clearly shows that perception that Tripoli’s souk was no longer commercially
active was incorrect (Tabet & Debs, Janvier, 2002) (Interview I). The comparison
between the 1986-87 and 2001 studies demonstrated that the structure of the souks
42
Pull buildings down and build new ones
Keep the façades of buildings but reconvert the inside
Renovate the building keeping all its main original structures but ensuring a modern functionality
(restaurants, café, cinema, housing etc.)
Renovate it to its original state in order to keep it as proof of history (museum, exhibition space etc.)
Alternated between options 3 and 4
Other, please explain
94
had only slightly altered, with most of the same activities and structures (clothing, cloth,
foods) still present in 2001 with a few additions such as the presence of jewellers
(Interview I). This demonstrated that contrary to popular belief the commercial presence
of the historic centre of Tripoli is still alive, also suggesting that the implementation of
contingent valuation or rapid participatory appraisals in these cases would not result in
accurate conclusions.
The study conducted on Saïda dating from before the CHUD project also
demonstrated a commercially active historical centre (Information International, 2001).
It determined that the ground floor use of the buildings of the souk were used 38% for
services, 7% commercial, 2.9% industry and 51% for residential purposes (Information
International, 2001). The commercial enterprises varied between an arrangement of low
quality of goods (clothes and accessories), traditional handicrafts (cloth merchants,
furniture), sweet manufacturers, wood furniture manufacturers which are still present in
historical Saïda today divided in their different sub-quarters (Information International,
2001). Since the rehabilitation of the Audi soap factory tourist activity has risen, the Audi
foundation also distributes a map with Saïda’s monuments (Appendix 4a). However
tourists are occasional at the moment: visitor facilities such as hotels and information
booths are limited (Information International, 2001, p. 202) (Table 5b). However, Saïda
has lost its role as a port which has resulted in economic losses affecting the population
of the historic centre.
The question of infrastructure as an economic dimension of urban heritage in
Lebanon is easily summarised for it is inadequate throughout the whole country. Since
the war the system of public transport is limited to very few buses, both in Beirut and
elsewhere (UN-Habitat, 2011). The heavy reliance on private transportation makes
Lebanon the country with the second highest person-to-car rate in  the world (UN-
Habitat, 2011). Cars are estimated to increase  by of 57% by 2030, this figure could be
influenced for the worse due to the rise in Syrian refugees, many of which have brought
their own vehicles, resulting in the overload of Lebanese roads (UN-Habitat, 2011).
Municipalities advocate the need to develop infrastructure, Saïda alone has promoted a
series of 53 projects worth approximately 425 million USD in public, private and civil
society investments, however these projects have not shown any sign of being
95
implemented (Al-Harithy, Dabaj, & Haidar, 2013) (Interview G) (Appendix 2c).
3.1.2.2 The cultural dimension of urban heritage
The cultural stock of urban heritage has already been discussed in the analysis of
Lebanese inventories of urban heritage in Chapter 2. But let us consider more closely the
extent of the depreciation of cultural stock according to the available inventories. As we
can see from Table 11 if we consider that the number of heritage buildings listed to be
preserve in Beirut in 1996 was 1016, and associations’ measurements that only 200 are
left, urban heritage stock in Beirut has been depreciated by 81%. However as discussed
in Chapter 2, the 1016 buildings listed were in no way exhaustive of the urban heritage
present in Beirut. If we consider that experts consider 5000 buildings would have been
worth preserving then the depreciation comes to the much higher rate of 96%
(Interview A, E & L). Experts are therefore correct when they affirm a 90% loss of Beirut’s
urban heritage. In the neighbourhoods of Gemmazye and Mar Mikhael these rates are
lower as mentioned earlier however this may not be for long.
Table 11 – Indications of the depreciation of cultural stock
Inventory of Heritage Buildings 1016 100%

(1995) (Appendix 3a)
1999 459 45%
2014 200 19%
Number of Buildings experts think 5000 100%

should have preserved (Interview
E & L)
1999 459 9%
2014 200 4%
The extent of the destruction of stock was reflected through the examples survey
respondents gave when they were asked to ‘name a traditional building that they would
have really wanted to safeguard or that should have been safeguarded’.43
43
42 out of 91 respondents answered this open question. Some respondents mentioned more than 1
building.
96
Table 12 – Survey respondents’ examples of destroyed buildings
Name of Building Location # of times

mentioned
(42
respondents)
Honeine palace ? 2
Fayrouz house ? 1
Neighbourhood in Furn Hayek Ibrine Achrafieh 1
Sursock Museum Achrafieh 1
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs Achrafieh 1
Beirut old municipality Downtown 1
Dome in downtown Downtown 2
The Egg Downtown 6
The Grand-Theatre of Beirut, in Downtown 1
downtown. But in its ORIGINAL purpose
(a theatre, not a boutique hotel).
Neighbourhood of Achrafieh East Beirut 3
Traditional houses in Mar Mikhael, facing East Beirut 6
EDL and Fouad Boutros street (houses
with gardens) and Gemmayze
A building in Lebanon street facing Kayan Gemmayze/Tab 1
aris
The three buildings on Ardati street Hamra 1
(leading from the Military Baths near
Raoucheh, to Bliss st.).
Rivoli Hamra 1
Amin Maalouf's house Mathaf/Badaro 2
Dargham Building Monot 1
Neighbourhood of Hamra West Beirut 2

Neighbourhoods of Zokak al Blat & Basta West Beirut 7
The Ziade Palace in Zokak el Blat (Kantari) Zokak el Blat 2
The cultural dimension of urban heritage can also be measured through cultural
activities. Through the presence and dynamism of associations or foundations devoted
to heritage valuation including the organization of cultural events and traditional
celebrations (Vernières et al., 2012, p. 126). Despite its complex context, Beirut is a city
that generates many cultural activities. This can be illustrated through examples such as
Achrafieh 2020 pedestrian street day in Mar Mikhael and Gemmayze, which had great
success with street art, art collectives and events.
Saïda’s urban fabric is much better preserved than Beirut’s (Interview H). The
layers of its urban tissue reveal the phases of its construction. An overview of Saïda’s
stock can be seen in Appendix 4a and 4b. Previous projects demonstrate both a national
97
and international concern for the historic city’s urban fabric. The old core of Saïda has
been preserved both by CHUD and private foundations that have invested in its
restoration (Hariri, Audi, Debbané, Greek Orthodox and Greek Catholic congregations)
through interventions on the Khan al-Franj, the Audi Soap Factory, the Old Qishla of
Saïda waterfront and harbor (Al-Harithy, Dabaj, & Haidar, 2013; UNESCO, 2001). The
Association for Saida’s Heritage and Environment (Saida al-Turath) and the Hariri
Foundation are also active on many levels in the old city, namely the restoration of
historic monuments and mosques, the rehabilitation of residential buildings with serious
structural problems and social work (Information International, 2001). But the damage
that the city suffered during the civil war and large urban sprawl caused by the influx of
two Palestinian refugee camps of Ein el-Hilweh and Míye-Míye have reduced the impact
of these developments (Interview G). The recommendations of UNESCO (2001)
concerning the need for a policy of urban and architectural rehabilitation with the
participation of government and civil society still retain their relevance.
3.1.2.3 The Social and human dimension of urban heritage
The human and social dimensions of urban heritage are essentially identified by
population volume, its age and structure, its resources, the existence of public places for
exchanges and meeting and other public structures such as health and safety (Vernières
et al., 2012, p. 126). Although there has been no recent census, the UN establishes
Beirut’s population at 361,000 (2012) for the city centre and 1.9 million in the
surrounding urban area (UN-Habitat, 2011). There is a general social appreciation of the
city environment mainly due to human activism and sociability, especially in
neighbourhoods such as Mar Mikhael, even though the city is wanting in the existence
of public and social spaces (Appendix 1). Thus despite urban heritage’s evident
destruction the city remains socially rich and active, which has in great part been due to
the long time periods Lebanese spent abroad and their wish to transpose activities
present in the rest of the world to their city (Interview G). However, the portions of the
population who find opportunities to leave the country often do not want to stay due to
the unstable political situation and security unrest.
Some scholars argue that little is known about the statue of the occupants of old
houses and neighbourhoods in Lebanon but expensive studies were completed before
98
and during the CHUD project (Akl & Davie, 1999). Saïda had an estimated population of
16500 in 2010 (485 hab/ha) (Al-Hagla, 2010). Although different nationalities are
represented (Lebanese (59%), Palestinian, Egyptian and Syrian), 92.5% of the inhabitants
have lived in the centre for more than 10 years and almost 68% of the residents were
born in the city (Information International, 2001). These figures are similar in other cities
such as Tripoli’s historic centre where the 2001 survey of 1150 households indicated
that 53% of inhabitants lived in the centre before 1975, 48% of household heads came
from Tripoli, 10% from the old town itself and 12% from the region (Interview I) (Tabet &
Debs, Janvier, 2002). Moreover 39% of residents are owners in Saïda’s historic centre
and 46% are owners in historic Tripoli (Al-Harithy, Dabaj, & Haidar, 2013) (Interview H &
I).
These figures demonstrate that the historic cores of these two culturally valuable
urban cities have stable residential populations: despite popular belief they are not all
inhabited by Syrians. However, the historic centres are marked as pockets of urban
poverty in Lebanon with urban poor ratios exceeding twice those in national poverty
levels (Information International, 2001, p. 223). As a result the population is marked by
large size of families and young demographics with more than 60% under the age of 25
(Information International, 2001, p. 223) Moreover, both Saïda and Tripoli are among
the cities with on-going tensions and unstable security because their division between
Sunnis and Shia: confrontations have risen since the Syrian crisis (Information
International, 2001, p. 216).
3.1.2.4 The natural/environmental dimension
The natural and environmental dimensions of urban heritage are identified by the
existence and conditions of parks and greens spaces, sewage facilities and networks, and
pollution in the city (Vernières et al., 2012, p. 130). In the case of Lebanon it is pertinent
to consider sea and coastal pollution as well, considering that many historic city centres
are on the coast.
Land use and urban planning regulations in the Arab region largely ignore basic
adaptation requirements to climate change with around 75% of buildings and
infrastructure at risk and very limited environmental regulations (Tolba & Saab, 2009).
99
The degradation and elimination of green spaces in Beirut is evident, with very few areas
still in existence such as the Jesuit Garden in Achrafieh (at risk of being destroyed and
replaced by a parking lot), René Moawad Garden (yet to be re-opened) and Horsh Beirut
(Interview G). Promoters assure that they will contribute to green spaces but the extent
of their contribution rests in the inclusion of indoor plants for the most part (Interview
G).
Sewage treatment and disposal is also an issue. Most of Lebanon has sewage
networks and the World Bank figures portray a healthy sanitation system (Interview G).
But in reality dumping grounds are present inside urban areas: the ‘waste Mountains’ in
Saida and Burj Hammoud are examples of mismanaged dumping sites. Moreover
sewage that is removed from cities is discharged in valleys and rivers, instead of going to
a treatment plan (only 8% of wastewater undergoes primary treatment), and the rivers
discharge them into the sea (UN-Habitat, 2011) (Interview G & M). Private beaches such
as Damour or Jieh, or beaches in Saïda itself bribe to discharge the sewage to the north
side of the beaches to delimit clean areas where people can swim (Interview G). 50m to
the north of any of these beaches you find ‘sewage soup’: half of every cubic meter of
sea water on 77 % of the coastline (the public areas) is thus undertreated solid waste
(Interview G).
Experts sustain that the environmental crisis has its roots in the problematic political
system and sectarian tensions (Saab, 2010). Data on air pollution is unreliable, the 2002
law that banned diesel to limit air pollution and prohibited led fuel in a country where
70% of cars are over 10 years old actually resulted in high emissions of hydrocarbon
(Saab, 2010, p. 257). Indeed the issue could only be solved with a functioning public
transport system, which is yet to be implemented: the rail network is defunct since 1975
(Saab, 2010, p. 257). Noise pollution is also high in Beirut with a constant 85 decibels,
well over the acceptable 70 decibel limit (Saab, 2010, p. 257). Moreover, environmental
regulations on the construction of new buildings are only applied in half measures and
often abused (Interview G). For example double-glazing is installed with ineffective
aluminium frames resulting in heat build-up.
It is thus clear that many differences are present between the valuation of urban
heritage stock in Beirut and in secondary cities. This analysis of stock should be
100
complemented by an analysis of flow which thesis will not address.
101
3.2 THE SUSTAINABILITY DIAGRAM (INVESTMENT AND DEPRECIATION)

3.2.1 Implementation of the sustainability diagram
Vernières’ (2012) grid discusses sustainability through the dynamics of

accumulation or deterioration of the four main dimensions of urban heritage by
identifying degradation and investment flows of urban heritage, aimed at maintaining at
least the same overall level of the stocks making up this heritage. Sustainability here
depends on private or public investment flows, and on the depreciation affecting the
changes in these various elements (Vernières et al., 2012, p.144).
The sustainability of Lebanese urban heritage will be illustrated by incorporating
the commentaries of the different dimensions of urban heritage discussed in the first
part of this Chapter. The diagrams presented are indicative simulations of the
sustainable character of the stock of urban heritage in Lebanon. The calculation of
precise net degradation and investment in the different dimensions of urban heritage
would have to be developed in a further study, although the indicative measures
presented are not in some cases wanting because of the absence of necessary data
present in Lebanon (Vernières et al., 2012, p.144)
The investments considered in these diagrams include all interventions on
protected and unprotected heritage buildings, public or private, as well as public spaces
(Vernières et al., 2012, p.145). Degradation includes depreciation in all four urban
heritage dimensions: the depreciation of economic capital surrounding heritage
(appreciation of productive facilities and their potential delocalization); the depreciation
of infrastructure; lack of maintenance of heritage buildings; the departure of population
reducing social value of an area; the status of associations; a reduction in cultural
manifestations; the degradation of green spaces; an increase in pollution and
accumulation of waste (Vernières et al., 2012, p.145). The time frame of the following
diagrams is ‘from after the civil war’ for Beirut and ‘from the implementation of the
CHUD project’ for Saïda. This illustration will provide indications on how the value of
urban heritage is evolving in Lebanon.
102
3.2.1.1 Degradation and reconstruction of urban heritage in Beirut
For its cultural dimension, the available data favour the use of accumulation
indicators in the architectural dimension. As illustrated earlier, the minimal rate of
destruction to be considered is an 81% loss in the last 10 years, making it a loss of 8% a
year. This does not consider the very high rate of new construction, which further
damages the togetherness of urban tissue and is key to urban fabric’s value. The very
few examples rehabilitation or re-use of urban heritage in Beirut as a whole are so
minimal that they hardly counter the great depreciation. This suggests that the cultural
dimension of urban heritage in Beirut as a whole, is strongly unsustainable.
For the economic dimension a complete heritage balance sheet and an
evaluation of investment flows would be necessary to calculate net appreciation but are
unavailable (Vernières et al., 2012, p.152). Macroeconomic indicators that shed light on
the local scale have been considered earlier in this chapter (Vernières et al., 2012,
p.152). The lack of data of further data has led this illustration to rest on expert opinion
and a general consideration of the local economic developments. For the case of Beirut
as a whole we have evaluated the economic dimension of heritage at the threshold of
sustainability because of the city’s lack of economic growth within urban heritage but
the presence of some activities nonetheless (Interview M). For the consideration of the
social dimension, the estimate of accumulation faces similar issues (Vernières et al.,
2012, p.153). Like for the economic dimension it is based on the appreciations made
earlier in this chapter and can be considered at the threshold of sustainability because of
the social appreciation present in Beirut with the attempt at social activities around
heritage. However the population’s departure willingness to leave creates a weak social
dimension, which is why it is being places at the threshold (Interview E & J).
For the environmental dimension, calculating an accumulation rate is still a
theoretical exercise. Theoretically one would measure degradation by considering flows
of pollution and waste (Vernières et al., 2012, p.153). The adaptation of such measures
to urban heritage is yet to be reflected on, we have thus considered general
environmental degradation rates, again as illustrated earlier. Expert opinion and
relevant figures transpire a gravely unsustainable situation of the environmental
dimension of urban heritage, which could gravely effect urban heritage both through the
103
effect of pollution but by bringing other effects such as a reduction in tourism as a

consequence of beach pollution (Interview G).
Diagram 16 – Sustainability of Beirut
The current situation for Beirut presents a net degradation of heritage both in the
cultural and environmental dimensions. The sustainability of urban heritage as a whole
is in question, which can be confirmed through the expert opinions stipulated
throughout this thesis. This diagram can help visualise the necessary objectives that
renovation projects would have to cover.
3.2.1.2 Degradation and reconstruction of urban heritage in Mar Mikhael
The case of Mar Mikhael is more positive than that of Beirut as a whole,
highlighting the importance of preserving urban heritage as an asset in this
neighbourhood in the future. The cultural dimension of heritage and reconstruction can
be placed at a theoretical zero accumulation rate because of the investments and
adaptive re-use in this area that counter-act the destructions (Interview M). The same
can be applied to the environmental dimension. However a positive accumulation rate
must be recognised for the economic and social dimension due to the creative industries
104
and recreational activities present in the area that have made it one of the most
attractive and vibrant areas in Beirut.
Diagram 17 – Sustainability of Mar Mikhael, Beirut
3.2.1.2 Degradation and reconstruction of urban heritage in Saïda
Saïda presents a very different case. As we have seen from our previous analysis,
its human dimensions can be valuated as presenting zero net accumulation or
degradation for despite popular belief the human characteristics of Saïda’s historic core
are stable. This is true for its economic dimension as well however, it must be
considered that the recent renovations resulting from both private (Hariri, Audi,
Debbané, Greek Orthodox and Greek Catholic congregations) and international
investment (CHUD) have made the historic core more tourist friendly bringing a slight
accumulation to its economic value and to its cultural value in light of the renovation of
the facades of many of the souk’s buildings. However, the exclusion of inhabitants from
the implementation process of these investments did not enhance the social dimension
of the historic centre, moreover no apparent change can be seen in the historic city’s
environmental dimension (Appendix 4b) (Information International, 2001). The
economic and cultural dimensions cannot be considered sustainable at a higher rate
105
because of the limitations of the effects of investment flows in light of local regulations
and the instability of the political situation.
Diagram 18 – Sustainability of Saïda
3.2.2 Risk effects and the effects of rehabilitation
These diagrams must be considered in relation to dynamics that may influence

them over time in order to establish an appreciation of urban heritage sustainability
(Vernières et al., 2012, p.156). The case of Beirut can be characterised as one where the
economic and cultural dimension of urban heritage generally contradict each other in
light of the speculation that occurs through real estate. The country generally strives for
economic growth instead of economic sustainability and this is reflected in the
consideration of its urban heritage.
In many ways Lebanon’s situation can be characterised as frustrated heritage
designation (Vernières et al. 2012, p.157).44 National and international investments are
insufficient to avoid continuous degradation of urban heritage, both in quantity and
quality in Beirut. The degradation rate is much lower in secondary cities such as Saïda
and Tripoli notably because of the implementation of the CHUD project, however its
accumulation effects were not as effective as they could have been in light of the
44
Coined by Vincent Geronimi (Vernières et al. 2012)
106
country’s state of unrest, a corrupt political situation persists and tourism diminishes
because of security instability. In addition, the environment is affected by heavy
pressure from pollution and waste (Vernières, 2012, p. 157).
The stakes of urban heritage renovation projects thus lie in the capacity to
overcome Lebanon’s difficult context. In light of these conclusions let us consider the
effects of two opposing projects in Beirut that are likely to be implemented in the near
future.
3.2.2 The Fouad Boutros and the ‘Liaison Douce’ projects
3.2.2.1 A project resulting in depreciation
The Fouad Butros Highway (‘Hekmeh-Turk’ Axis) project is supported by the CDR
and aims to cut through the neighbourhoods of Hekmeh and Mar Mikhael from the
Spinneys crossroad on Mar Mitr street to Charles Helou avenue (Interview E). A 230m
long tunnel is also to be inserted starting from the Hekmeh neighbourhood ending onto
a bridge passing over rue Saleh-Labaki on rue Armenie (Ilcinkas, 2013). The funds for the
project have been de-blocked, amounting to 60 million dollars, the expropriations that
have still not taken place will implicate one third of this amount (Laugel, 2014).
A variety of experts: Antoine Atallah, Architect-Urbanist; Mona Fawaz, Urban
Planning and Design (AUB); George Zouain, development economist (GAIA-Heritage);
Abdul-Halim Jabr, Architecture and Design (AUB); Mousbah Rajab, Urbanism (Lebanese
University), among others, have spoken against the project (Interview E). Over its
deigned period of 30 months, the project will result in the demolition of a whole
traditional inhabited neighbourhood, which integrates a variety of buildings from the
1920s, and is one of Beirut’s last largely intact urban clusters (Appendix 5a). The highway
would affect hundreds of families, more than 15 000 inhabitants and is a direct threat to
the creative and commercial economies of the Mar Mikhael neighbourhood (Interview
C, E & M) (Laugel, 2014).
Experts have criticized the project as counterproductive and anti-pedestrian. It
will not help alleviate traffic in the neighbourhood but bring more cars in through transit
circulation which it will direct into the already saturated Alfred Naccache Avenue. The
highway will be result in an immense obstacle to pedestrian circulation: large city
107
managers have demonstrated that the creation of highways in city centres only solves
problems in the very short term, and is in fact at the source of a vicious circle: an
increase in express roads in city centres causes the need for additional private vehicles,
going against evolutionary infrastructure plans in low surface cities such as Beirut
(Interview C).
Map 645 – Fouad Boutros Highway plan
Moreover the Fouad Boutros highway will actually reduce the number of parking
spaces on its axis. Questioned on this point, Elias Helou (CDR) said that this would be
largely compensated ‘by two underground parking with 400 spaces each’ (Ilcinkas,
2013). However these two underground parking spaces do not actually respond to
demand as they are far from the areas in need, from schools and restaurants and will
consequently penalize them (Interview E). Elias Helou also insisted that the project has
much evolved since its conception and that the top of the tunnel will be converted into a
green area (Baaklini, 2013). However, studies completed by different experts have
shown that this would also result in the loss of a further 750 parking spaces (Interview
E).
45
Partially demolished building
Totally demolished buildings
108
Table 13 – Consequence of Extent of the degradation of the dimensions of urban

Fouad-Boutros Project heritage
Economic Cultural Social Environmental
Demolition of 30 traditional x xxx x
buildings (14 to be completely
destroyed) + 30 other constructions
Displacement of 15 000 inhabitants x x xxx
Demolition of more than 10 000 xx xx xxx

sqm of garden and centenary
orchards
Fragmentation of a pedestrian area xxx xx

in Hekmeh, part of Charles Malek
Avenue and the neighbourhood of
Mar Mikhael
Breaking of the historic urban x xxx x

façade of Armenia Street by a road
bridge blocking the street
perspective
Destruction of the social fabric of x x xxx

the affected neighbourhoods
Rise in affected neighbourhood x xxx

noise and pollution
*By author
Diagram 19 – Sustainability diagram of Mar Mikhael with Fouad Boutros project
109
Despite all these points and an active civil society, in particular Achrafieh Stairs,
Save Beirut Heritage and APLH, the project will most likely to be implemented because
of the municipality’s support. It is thus clear that the sustainability of the urban heritage
of Mar Mikhael would be gravely affected as can be deduced from the Table above.
An alternative project has been proposed initially prepared by urbanist Habib
Debs: the Fouad Boutros Park (Baaklini, 2013) (Appendix 5b). This alternative plan aims
at finding solutions for the management of local traffic flows and at the same time to
create a green corridor or staircase park on the parcels already expropriated between
Mar Mitr and Armenia Streets (Appendix 5b). This plan was elaborated by a variety of
experts keeping in mind the use of existing roads instead of the construction of new
ones (Interview E).
3.2.2.2 A project resulting in appreciation
The creation of a smooth liaison (‘Liaison Douce’) between Horsh Beirut (Pine
Park) and Downtown Beirut via Damascus Road is a project planned by URBI (Habib Debs
Architects-Urbanists) for Ile de France (IdF), in liaison with Beirut Municipality and
funded by the French Development Agency (URBI & SIRAM Consultants, 2013).46 The
project has gone through several phases, each step being approved by the Muhafez and
the Municipality of Beirut (Interview B).
The Liaison Douce aims to act as a lever for the re-composition of the urban
fabric of Beirut and represents an opportunity for Beirut to create a consistent spatial
structure while giving is a green qualitative frame able to ensure both the readability of
its urban space and effective urban mobility (URBI & SIRAM Consultants, 2013). Acting
as a pilot project for a general plan of Beirut’s public spaces, Liaison Douce intends to
change the nature of the neighbourhood through the incorporation of walk-able areas,
public and green spaces (Interview B) (Appendix 6a). Its preparation studies have
completed extensive surveys of both the inhabitants’ habits, the neighbouring
46
There has been an agreement between Beirut Municipality and the Ile-de-France Region since 1999
(Interview B). Beirut Municipality asked IdF to intervene on the city’s lacking transport system, but the IdF
considered the preparation of public spaces necessary before the question of transportation would be
addressed. They currently have three projects planned in order to achieve this objective: a displacement
project, a green areas project and a venture on the question of lighting in the capital. The Liaison Douce is
there pilot project, ready for implementation, which has been shared with local stakeholders.
110
institutions’ needs and traffic volumes and patterns (URBI & SIRAM Consultants, 2013).
Rappel des Séquences et de leur Vocation Itinéraire envisagé
Map 7 – Liaison Douce plan
A - SÉQUENCE B - SÉQUENCE
COMMERCIALE RÉSIDENTIELLE D - SEQUENCE
PARC
Badaro
Musée
Ghobeiry
FFM
SODECO
Monot Bois des Pins
Ring C - SÉQUENCE
CAMPUS
Ras-el-Nabeh
Kaskas
15 *(URBI & SIRAM Consultants, 2013)
Although it does not aim to directly intervene on local urban heritage, Liaison
Douce involves urban heritage in its project vision, underlining the need for its
protection. Thus, although it does not invest or degrade the stock of urban heritage, it
implicates it in its vision where both buildings and the urban fabric surrounding them are
valorised.
The project characterises urban buildings along its axis (Damascus road) into
three categories: downtown historic and densely arranged buildings; institutional
buildings and their gardens; architecture from the beginning of the modern period and
their gardens) (URBI & SIRAM Consultants, 2013). Liaison Douce also takes into
consideration the memorial importance of the area of Damascus Road by attempting to
address the reconciliation of the eastern and western parts of the city (Interview B & C)
(Verdeil, 2008). It addresses the importance of enhancing public spaces in the city by
recreating convivial and neutral areas with both social and environmental value
(Appendix 6). It also plans to develop squares and vocational areas for public gatherings
or cultural installations and plans to expand new green spaces and rehabilitate existing
ones (Interview C) (Appendix G).
111
Table 14 – Objectives of Liaison Extent of the accumulation of the dimensions of

Douce Project urban heritage
Economic Cultural Social Environmental
Improve urban xxx xx
displacement/mobility: connect
Horsh Beirut with Downtown
Improve economic dynamism xxx xx
through urban regeneration
Promote alternative vehicles to the xx x xxx

private car
Re-qualify the use and image of x xxx
public and free spaces in Beirut for
social exchange
Create a lung for Beirut: green x xxx
promenade including many existing
green spaces (cemetery, university
campus, public and private
gardens, etc.)
Support physical sports and cultural x x x
and recreational activities
Re-conciliate the urban tissue xx xxx

around the ex-demarcation line,
while preserving the memorial
aspects of its urban fabric
Enhancing the cultural nature of xxx x x

the axis by incorporating the urban
heritage in its perimeter in its
planning. Ex: Beit Beirut (Memory
47
Museum)
Enhance the image of the city by xx xx

linking its iconic places (Canons
Square, Béchara-el-Khoury Square,
Museum Square, Horsh Beirut)
* By author - Interviews A, B & C, URBI & SIRAM Consultants, 2013
Experts have criticised the project despite its many positive aspects for several
reasons, not only so they doubt its successful application but they also believe it will
create more congestion, maintaining that it has not taken into consideration the extent
of verticalisation of the urban landscape (interview A). Despite these opinions, it is clear
from Table 14 that the sustainability of the urban heritage of Damascus Road would be
positively influenced through the regeneration of multiple of urban heritage’s
47
The report mentions the continual destruction of urban heritage and the projects aim to preserve it by
incorporating it in an inclusive perspective of urban heritage (URBI & SIRAM Consultants, 2013).
112
dimensions if the Liaison Douce project were to be implemented even though it would
not directly address the rehabilitation of its heritage buildings.
Diagram 20 – Sustainability diagram of Damascus Road with Liaison Douce project
113
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

This thesis has defined urban heritage and development and reviewed both use
values and non-use values of urban heritage through the principle of TEV. It has then
addressed the limitations of heritage designation in Lebanon, resulting in its necessary
social appropriation which is nonetheless also restricted because of the lack of
legislation and the presence of political imbalance. Urban heritage stock has then been
illustrated with the Vernières (2012) grid identifying the differences in sustainability
between urban heritage in Beirut, in the neighbourhood of Mar Mikhael and in
secondary cities in Lebanon, particularly in Saïda. It has lastly considered the effects of
two urban development projects on urban heritage’s dimensions.
The arguments presented in this thesis have shown that, in order to fully
evaluate urban heritage in Lebanon, its context, notably the consideration of the extent
of its official designation and social appropriation, must be taken into consideration in
order to adapt both the identification of the stock of urban heritage and the flows
resulting from this stock in the process of valuation. A lack of consideration of context
would result in an incomplete valuation, where neither the amount of urban heritage
stock nor its appropriate value would be considered. Consequently, the use of such a
valuation for urban heritage and development project methodologies would result in the
planning of inadequate projects that would not enable development.
The valuation of urban heritage is therefore useful for policy or project design if
and only if context is involved, both in the establishment of the methodology of
valuation and in its application. In order to produce effective urban heritage
preservation projects and policies that will generate local development, valuation must
determine both contextual preconditions (legal and civil society) and local urban
heritage conditions (stock, flow and degradation/regeneration). On the one hand we can
consider that the Lebanese context presents too many limitative socio-economic and
legal preconditions for the preservation of urban heritage for development. On the
other hand, lack of development activities in this setting will result in the complete loss
of culturally, socially, economically and environmentally valuable assets. A lack of
address would result in irreversible destruction, bringing us back to the question of costs
‘avoided’ or ‘simple’ profits.
114
The challenge is therefore to develop a systematized way to consider the

implications and effects of context on urban heritage and consequently urban heritage
valuation and urban heritage development policies and projects. It is a question of
elaborating a tool to enable policies and programmes established for heritage and
development to be effective. One would have to generate a diagram, which we shall
name Context+. Context+ would determine and measure the highest contextual risks
(political, legislative, economic, social, and security risks) with scales ranging from 1 to 5,
for example, and would create a holistic indicator for contextual complications. Context+
would then be taken into consideration both in the creation of methodologies for
valuation and methodologies for heritage development policies and projects. The
diagram would be standardised and universally applicable, but would also be unique and
alterable for each country, enabling policies to be adapted accordingly and programmes
to identify criteria to be imposed in order for them to be effective and successful.
This tool would complement economic evaluation in its essential role when
choosing between concurrent development and urban heritage projects in today’s
febrile economic climate. Even though Context+ would not be sufficient to guarantee
actual policy effectiveness, local understanding and adaptation would become priorities
in project and policy design, which would consequently have a better chance of
overcoming limitative preconditions such as urban planning failure, post-conflict and
socio-politically unstable settings, and lack of constitutional laws and strategies for the
preservation and documentation of cultural heritage.
In identifying recommendations for future urban heritage valuations or projects
in Lebanon, scales for Lebanon’s contextual risks were identified. The identification of
these risks delimits feasible recommendations for urban heritage and development
programmes. This is key in complex contexts such as Lebanon where so many
recommendations can be identified, and yet few of them would be successfully
applied.48 The identification of these recommendations presents the conclusion of our
study.
48
The survey carried out for this thesis suggested three recommendations asking respondents to
determine their impact and feasibility. The results were inconclusive however. What did transpire from
their open answers was their mistrust of the government.
115
Table 1549 – Reflection Context+
Contextual risks 1-5 (1 best; 5 Average

worst) according
to risk
category
Political stability (highest number of months/years
4
of 1 running government, elections)
Political risks
Political corruption 4
Lack of transparency 5
Existence of legislation for urban heritage
4
protection
Characteristics of the legislation for urban
4
heritage protection
Heritage legislative
Existence of fiscal provisions favouring the
risks conservation/valuation of urban heritage
5
Existence of legal and institutional support
favouring the conservation/valuation of urban 5
heritage
Existence of legislation to protect old
5
General legislative owner/tenants
risks Monetary sanctions for construction in urban 5
heritage perimeters
Social risks Religion, inequality etc. 3
Presence of official state of conflict or
Security risks/ 4
neighbouring conflict
Geopolitical risks Presence of bombings or other internal 4
Existence of local, national or international
structures for handling the conservation valuation 3
of urban heritage
Institutional capacity
Labelling or membership of urban heritage to
national or international World Heritage type 2
status
Capacity for mobilising international technical or
2
financial aid.
Existence of public (local, national, international),
financial arrangements for the
Financial capacity 2
conservation/valuation of heritage. Direct and
indirect aid.
Existence of private financial provisions to finance
2
heritage conservation/valuation
Academic capacities Existence and availability of data 4
49
Table 15 is only a first attempt which I hope to develop with further research. The values indicated are
the result of appreciations inferred from the Interviews and survey conducted for the research of this
study. Further measurements would have to be carried out in order to determine operational indicators.
Each indicator should be verified.
116
A first recommendation would be the creation of a scientific commission to

access the economic gains that can be made from re-using traditional Lebanese
buildings. Having the commission establish guidelines on the economic, energy and
environmental gains to be made from preserving traditional buildings, for the Lebanese
government, municipalities and local urban developers. Although the creation of these
guidelines would not necessarily mean their application, this recommendation would
enable to better establish economic gains from urban heritage preservation in the
Lebanese case. It would also help show locals the benefits of preserving their heritage in
terms of attracting tourism and accentuate heritage as a source of development.
Another recommendation would be to re-establish an ICOMOS national
Lebanese committee in order to submit candidatures of urban heritage properties to be
inscribed on the World Heritage List. Experts have argued however, that ICOMOS should
be used more as a place to record heritage losses and create awareness at an
international level (Interview I). Further inscriptions would depend on the government,
which as we have seen would not address this need. Moreover, inscribed sites are not
well protected.
Other recommendations include a comprehensive communication strategy in
order to create extensive awareness campaigns at a local, national and international
level. Successes in such campaigns would create greater public support in cases on
government transgressions. Developing children’s awareness of their heritage through
heritage education would also have lasting effects. The creation of a fund to protect and
finance the rehabilitation of urban heritage and neighbourhoods would also be a good
initiative, which would give individual cases financial support, but this recommendation
would have limited influence on its own.
The other recommendations that have been identified would have great
substantial impacts if applied, but the possibility of their application is extremely difficult
because of Lebanon’s political instability. These recommendations include: improving
and enforcing current heritage legislations, including the recognition of an inclusive
definition of urban heritage – without such modification to legislation all other policy
and programme benefits are ultimately limited; creating monetary penalties for parties
who do not respect heritage law and provide positive incentives for owners to keep
117
heritage buildings; abolishing the ‘old rent law’ which encourages owners of old
buildings to demolish and sell them; giving the DGA the human, financial and political
resource to enable it to face the prerogatives of current heritage legislation (Tyan,
2012). Installing urban planning and zoning would also be highly recommended.
Unfortunately these last recommendations would entail a complete alteration or
improvement of Lebanese context. Since this is unlikely in the immediate future, the
challenge it to find alternative measures to address complex contexts such as Lebanon.
118
BIBLIOGRAPHY
2014 Index of Economic Freedom. (2014). Lebanon. Consulted 22nd January 2014, Index of
Economic Freedom: http://www.heritage.org/index/country/lebanon
A.R.S. Progetti. (2002, September). Institutional Assessment of the DGA, Phase 1 Report. Council
for Development and Reconstruction (CDR), Republic of Lebanon, IBRD International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development Cultural Heritage and Urban Development Project (CHUD),
Beirut.
Akl, Z., & Davie, M. (1999). Questions sur le patrimoine architectural et urbain au Liban. Beyrouth
& Tours: ALBA & CNRS "URBAMA".
Al-Hagla, K. (2010). Sustainable urban development in historical areas using the tourist trail
approach: A case study of the Cultural Heritage and Urban Development (CHUD) project in Saïda,
Lebanon . Cities , 27, 234-248.
Al-Harithy, H., Dabaj, J., & Haidar, Z. (2013). Saïda Urban Sustainable Development Startegy,
Local Expert Team, Descriptive Memory Report, ‘Cultural Heritage’. Saïda: Area Metropolitana de
Barcelona (AMB), ENPICBCMED, EU, USUDS.
Anderson, K., & Gale, F. (1992). Inventing Places: Studies in Cultural Geography. Melbourne,
Australia: Longman Chesire.
APLH. (2010, March 1). Home. Consulted 1st March 2014, sur Association for the Protection of
Lebanese Heritage: http://www.protect-lebaneseheritage.com/
APLH. (2014, January). Petitions24. Consulted 1st January 2014, on Petition to replace and
sanction the current Minister of Culture:
http://www.petitions24.com/petition_to_remove_minister_of_culture_mr_gaby_layoun
Arezki, R., Cherif, R., & Piotrowski, J. (2009, August). Tourism Specialization and Economic
Development: Evidence from the UNESCO Worl Heritage List. (I. M. Paper, Éd.) MPRA (Munich
Personal RePEc Archive).
Ashworth, G., & Tunbridge, J. (1996). Dissonant Heritage: the Management of the Past as a
Resource in Conflict. Chichester: Wiley.
Atkinson, R. (2011, January). Eastern Promise. Museums Journam , 29-31.
Baaklini, S. (2013, June). Le projet alternatif à la route Fouad Boutro: dévier la criculation et créer
un parc vert. A la Une: Beyrouth.
Bayo, Á. G.-F. (2013, September). International Meeting on Contemporary Architecture in

Historic Cities. Consulted on
http://unesco.urbanismosevilla.org/unesco/en/speaker/%C3%A1lvaro-g%C3%B3mez-ferrer-
bayo-0
Bendix, R., Eggert, A., & Paselmann, A. (2012). Heritage Regimes and the State (Vol. 6).
Göttingen Studies in Cultural Property.
119
Bernier, L., Dormaels, M., & Le Fur, Y. (2012). La patrimonialisation de l'ubain. Québec: Presses
de l'Université de Québec.
Boudisseau, G. (2012, December). Les prix du foncier à Mar Mikhaël. Consulted 18th March 2014,
on Le Commerce du Levant: http://www.lecommercedulevant.com/affaires/immobilier-
liban/les-prix-du-foncier-%C3%A0-mar-mikha%C3%ABl/21355
Buccianti-Barakat, L., & Chamussy, H. (2012). Le Liban: Géographie d'un pays paradoxal. Paris:
Belin.
Choay. (1992). L'Allégorie du Patrimoine. Paris: La Couleur des Idées: Seuil.
Dalmas, L., Geronimi, V., Noel, J.-F., & Tsang King Sang, J. (2012). Les défis de l'évaluation
économique du patrimoine urbain des pays en développement/The challenges of economic
evaluation of urban heritage in developing countries. Cahier du CEMOTEV n° 2012-01/02 .
Davie, M. (1999). Le patrimoine architectural et urbain au Liban. Questions sur le patrimoine

arhcitectural et urbain au Liban. Beyrouth: ALBA-URBAMA.
De Kadt, E. (1979). Tourism, Passport to Development? Oxford: Oxford University Press.
EFTEC. (2005). Valuation of the Historic Environment: The scope for using results of valuation
studies in the appraisal and assessment of heritage-related projects and programmes Report.
Final Report prepared for English Heritage, the Heritage Lottery Fund, the Department for
Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Transport, London.
FischFisch, A. (2011). Formes Urbaines et Architecturales de Beyrouth: Depuis le XIXe Siècle

jusqu'à nos jours. Beyrouth: Université Libanaise des Beaux-Arts (ALBA).
Goodwin, J., & Horowitz, R. (2002). Introduction: The Methodological Strengths and Dilemmas of
Qualitative Sociology. Qualitative Sociology , 25 (1), 33-47.
Graham, B., & Howard, P. (2008). The Ashgate Research Companion to Heritage and Identity.
Cornwall: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Greffe, X. (1990). La valorisation économique du patrimoine: la demande et l'offre de

monuments. Paris: Anthropos-Economica.
Hackenberg, R. A. (2002). Closing the Gap Between Anthropology and Public Policy: The Route
Through Cultural Heirtage Development. Human Organization , 61 (3), 288-298.
Hadman, A., Lamy-Willing, S., & Yazigi, S. (2012). Axes de rélfexions pour une réforme du droit
de l'urbanisme au Liban. Note de synthèse suite au séminaire: "Droit de l'urbanisme: états des
lieux et recommandations", 14-15 Octobre 2010. Beyrouth: Academie Libanaise des Beaux-Arts
(ALBA).
Hampton, M. P. (2005). Heritage, Local Communities and Economic Development. Annals of

Tourism Research , 32 (3), 735-759.
Hanna, M. (2010). L'Echec des politiques patrimoniales au Liban: Acteurs et Enjeux. Paris IV:
Laboratoire Espace Nature et Cultures ENEC.
120
Harvey, D. (2008). The Right to the City. New Left Review , 53.
Huu Tuan, T., & Navrud, S. (2006). Valuating cultural heritage in developing countries: comparing
and pooling contingent valuation and choice modelling estimates. Environment and Resource
Economics , 38, 51-69.
ICOMOS. (1987). Charter for the Conservation of Historic Town and Urban Areas (WASHINGTON
CHARTER). Washington.
Ilcinkas, A. (2013, July). Axe Fouad-Boutros: La bataille a commencé. NOUN , pp. 62-65.
Information International. (2001). Stakeholder Analysis and Social Assessment for the Proposed
Cultural the Proposed Cultural Heritage and Tourism Heritage and Tourism Development Project.
The Council for Development and Reconstruction (CDR), Beirut.
International Foundation for Art Research (IFAR). (2008, January). Country Summary for
Lebanon. Consulted 15th March 2014, on International Foundation for Art Research (IFAR):
http://www.ifar.org/country_title.php?docid=1309292450
Labadi, S., & Long, C. e. (2010). Heritage and Globalisation. London & New York: Routledge.
Lafrenz Samuels, K. (2010). Mobilizing Heritage in the Maghreb: Rights, Development, and
Transnational Arcaheologies. Phd Dissertaion, Stanford Univeristy.
Lafrenz Samuels, K. (2009). Trajectories of Development: International Heritag Management of

Arcaheology in the Middle East and North Africa. Archaeologies: Journal of the World
Archaeological Congress , 68-91.
Larkin, C. (2012). Memory and Conflict in Lebanon: Remembering and forgetting the past.
London & New York.
Laugel, M. (2014, March 3). La société civile se mobilise contre le projet d'autoroute "Fouad-
Boutros". Consulted 16th March 2014, on L'Orient Le Jour:
http://www.lorientlejour.com/article/857004/la-societe-civile-se-mobilise-contre-le-projet-
dautoroute-fouad-boutros-.html
Library of Economics and Liberty. (2008, January 1). Rent Control. Consulted 5th March 2014, on
Econlib: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentControl.html
Licciardi, G. (2010). Supporting Sustainable Development in Historic Cities and Cultural Heritage
Sites. World Bank: Urban Development and Local Government.
Licciardi, G., & Amirtahmasebi, R. (2012). The Economics of Uniqueness: Investing in Historic City
Cores and Cultural Heritage Assets for Sustainable Development. Washington: World Bank.
Licciardi, G., & Bigio, A. (2010). The Urban Rehabilitation of Medinas: The World Bank Experience
in the Middle East and North Africa. Marseille, France: The World Bank.
Lindblom, I., & Paludan-Müller, C. (2012). Harnessing the Hidden potential of cities: Report from
the Oslo Workshop 11-12 April 2012. Oslo: Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage Reseach
5NIKU).
121
Lowenthal, D. (1985). The past is a foreign country. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marsh, C. (1982). The Survey Method. London: Allen and Unwin.
Mowforth, M., & Munt, I. (1998). Tourism and Sustainability: New Toruism in the Third World.
London & New York: Routledge.
Navrud, S., & Ready, R. C. (2002). Valuing Cultural Heritage: Applying Environmental Valuation
Techniques to Historic Buildings, Monuments and Artifacts . UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
OECD. (February 2007). Assessing Environmental Policies. Policy Brief. Paris: OECD.
Ost, C. (2009). A Guide for Heritage Economics in Historic Cities: Values, Indicators, Maps and
Policies Research Report. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute.
Pagiola, S. (1996). Economic Analysis of Investments in Cultural Heritage: Insights from

Environmental Economics. Washington: Environment Department, World Bank.
Peacock, S. A. (1998). Does the past have a future? The Political economy of Cultural Heritage.
London: The Institute of Economic Affairs.
Pearce, D., Atkinson, G., & Mourato, S. (2006). Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment:
Recent Developments. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Pendlebury, J. (2009). Preservation in the Age of Consensus. London: Routledge.
Poulot, D. (2006). Une histoire du patrimoine en Occident, XVIIIe-XXIe siècle: du monument aux
valeurs . Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
Rautenberg, M. (2004). La patrimonialisation, entre appropriation sociale et désignation

institutionelle. L'effet géographique. Consturction sociale, appréhension cognitive et
configuration matérielle des objets géographiques , 71-88.
Rautenberg, M. (2003). La rupture patrimoniale. (E. P. Cresson, Éd.) A La Croisée.
Rizkallah, M.-J. (2014, February). Lettre ouverte au nouveau ministre de la Culture au Liban M.
Arayji Lire la Suite: Lettre ouverte au nouveau ministre de la Culture au Liban M. Arayji,
Libanews. Consulted 14th February 2014, on Libanews: La média citoyen du Liban:
http://libnanews.com/2014/02/15/lettre-ouverte-au-nouveau-ministre-de-la-culture-au-liban-
m-arayji/
Rowell, A. (2014, Febraury 17). Vehicle explosions in Lebanon since 2011. Consulted 5th March
2014, on NOW.: https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/reportsfeatures/535852-vehicle-explosions-in-
lebanon-since-2011
Saab, N. (2010). A plan for environmental recovery. Dans N. Salam, Options for Lebanon (pp.
255-270). London & New York: Centre for Lebanese Studies & I.B. Tauris Publishers.
Sanjek, R. (2000). Urban History, Culture and Urban Ethnography. City & Society , XII (2), 105-
114.
122
Save Beirut Heritage. (2014, January 1). Beirut City May. Consulted 10th March 2014, on Save
Beirut Heritage: http://savebeirutheritage.org/
Serageldin, I. (1999). Very Special Places: the Architecture and Economics of Intervening in
Historic Cities (éd. Culture in Sustainable Development). Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
Sharp, D. (2010, April 1). The battle for Beirut's buildings. Consulté le February 3, 2014, sur The
Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/apr/01/beirut-buildings-dubai-
skyscraper
Smith, L. (2006). Uses of Heritage. London & New York: Routledge.
Sprinz, D., & Wolinsky, Y. (2002). Case, Numbers, Models: International Relations Research
Methods. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.
Stöhr, W., & Fraser Taylor, D. (1981). Development from Above or Below? The Dialectics of
Regional Planning in Developping Countries. New York & Toronto: John Wiley and Sons.
Tabet. (2001). Beyrouth: Portrait de Ville. Beyrouth.
Tabet, J., & Debs, H. (Janvier, 2002). Réhabilitation et Revitalisation Urbaine de la Ville Ancienne
de Tripoli: Rapport Préliminaire. Conseil du Développement et de la Reconstruction (CDR),
Beirut.
The Hangzhou Declaration: Placing Culture at the Heart of Sustainable Development Policies
(UNESCO & Hangzhou May 17, 2013).
Thomas, G. (2005). The Qualitative Foundations of Political Science Methodology. Perspectives

on Politics , 3 (4), 855-866.
Throsby, D. (2010). The Economics of Cultural Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
TimeRime. (2010, January 9). Old Rent Law Lebanon. Consulted 12th March 2014, on TimeRime:
http://timerime.com/en/timeline/941672/Old+Rent+Law+-+Lebanon/
Tolba, M., & Saab, N. (2009). Arab Enviornment: Climate Change. Impact of Climate Change on
Arab Countries. Beirut: Arab Forum for Environment and Development (AFED).
Toubekias, G., & Dentzer, J.-M. (2009). Report of the joint ICOMOS/World Heritage Centre
reactive monitoring mission to TYRE, Lebanon.
Tyan, M. (2012, Octobre). La protection du patrimoine bâti au Liban: Cadre juridique, acteurs et
enjeux. Beyrouth: Arab Centre for Achitecture.
UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda. (July 2013). Statistics and
Indicators for the post-2015 development agenda. Nex York: UN.
UNDP. (2013). Human Development Report 2013. The Rise of the South: Human Progress in a
Diverse World. New York: UNDP.
UNESCO. (May 2012). Culture: a driver and an enabler of sustainable development. UN System
Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda. Paris: UNESCO.
123
UNESCO. (1976, November). Recommendation concerning the Safeguarding and Contemporary

Role of Historic Areas. Consulted 4th February 2014, on UNESCO:
http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-
URL_ID=13133&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
UNESCO. (2001). Urban development: Finding a Balance among Land, Sea and People: 3rd
International Seminar (28-31 May 2001). Saïda, Lebanon: University Institute of TEchnology.
UNESCO. (2011, November). Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape, including a

glossary of definitions. Consulted 3rd February 2014, on UNESCO:
http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-
URL_ID=48857&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
UNESCO. (2014). State Party Lebanon. Consulted 5th February 2014, on UNESCO World Heritage
Convention: http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/lb
UNESCOPRESS. (2011, July). World Bank and UNESCO: Expanding Opportunities for Collaboration
on Culture and Sustainable Development. Consulted 12th February 2014, on UNESCO:
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/media-services/single-
view/news/world_bank_and_unesco_expanding_opportunities_for_collaboration_on_culture_a
nd_sustainable_development/#.UvzGBEJ5NZB
UN-Habitat. (2011). Lebanon Urban Profile: a Desk Review Report. Lebanon: United Nations
Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT).
URBI & SIRAM Consultants. (2013). Aménagement d'une Liaison Douce entre le Bois des Pins et le
Centre-Ville de Beyroith par la Rue de Damas. Rapport Phase III. Ile de France (IdF) & AFD,
Beyrouth.
Verdeil, E. (2008). Reconstructions et politiques du patrimoine urbain au Liban. Colloque

international: les heritages culturels dans l'architecture et l'urbanisme au XXIe siècle. Abu Dhabi:
UAE: Paris Sorbonne Abu Dhabi.
Vernières, M. (2012). Methods for the Economic Valuation of Urban Heritage: A Sustainability-
based Approach. Paris: Collection A Savoir n°13, AFD.
Vernières, M. (2011). Patrimoine et développement: Etudes pluridisciplinaires. Paris: GEMDEV -

Karthala.
World Bank. (1999). Culture and Sustainable Development: A Framework for Action. Washington,
D.C.: The World Bank, Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development.
World Bank. (2001). Cultural heritage and development: a framework for action in the Middle
East and North Africa. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
World Bank. (2012, March). Cultural Heritage and Urban Development Project. Consulted 26th
March 2014, on World Bank:
http://web.worldbank.org/external/projects/main?pagePK=64312881&piPK=64302848&theSite
PK=40941&Projectid=P050529
124
World Bank. (2013). Implementation Status & Results - LB Cultural Heritage and Urban
Development (P050529). World Bank.
Zouain, G.(2001). Du Patrimoine dans l'Etat moderne - réflexions et éléments d'un politique.
Travaux et Jours Université Saint Joseph , 67.
Zouain, G. (2011). Les industries créatives dans la ville: la cas du quartier de Mar-Mikhael à
Beyrouth. Travaux et Jours , 85, 139-184.
Zouain, G. (2002). Le patrimoine culturel dans l'économie: éléments d'une réflexion. Travaux et
Jours, 69, 203-224.
125
APPENDICES
Appendix 1a – Interview outline
1. Interviewee presentation
2. What roles do socio-economic and political contexts play on Lebanese urban

heritage.
3. To what extent do you believe the Lebanese population appropriated their urban
heritage?
a. Are their confessional differences in the process of appropriation of
lack thereof
b. What is the role of the government in local urban appropriation
4. Have urban heritage and development projects been successful in Lebanon

a. CHUD
b. Other
c. In Beirut?
d. Does local context have a role in the success of these projects
5. Is urban rehabilitation necessary in either Beirut or secondary cities?

a. Is one more realisable and why
6. How many buildings have you heard of being destroyed in the last year
a. Can you name any of them
7. What is the extent of environmental degradation on Lebanese cities – Beirut and

secondary cities
a. Conditions and existence of parks and green spaces
b. Exposure to natural risks
c. Conditions of sewage network and refuse collection and treatment
(SAIDA)
d. Level and types of pollution and the presence of harmful animals and
degradation
126
Elisabetta)Pietrostefani!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !! !!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!Sciences)Po)–)PSIA)
Valuating!Urban!Heritage!in!a!Development!Perspective!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!201382014)
Appendix(1b(–(Interview(Grid)(I!pray!the!Sciences!Po!Grading!Committee!not!to!divulge!the!names!disclosed!in!the!following!list!without!
consulting!the!author.)(
(
Other(
Interview( Urban(heritage( Interview(
Name( Training( Current(position( relevant(
Reference( development(projects( date(
positions(
Head)of)the)Department)of) EUROMED(Heritage(
Interview(A( BARAKAT)Liliane)) Geographer( Geography,)Saint)Joseph) ))N/A) Program(–(MARE( 10/12/13)
University,)Beirut.) NOSTRUM(
IDFL(Beirut,(‘Projet(de(
Architect/Management( Ile8de8France)(IDF))Region)
Interview(B( BOUVARD)Eric)) ))N/A) liason(douce’(CentreL 17/12/13)
of(Urban(Projects( Representative,)Beirut)
ville(
Principle)architect)for)‘Projet)
URBI)agency,) CHUD((TRIPOLI),(ENPI(
Interview(C( DEBS)Habib)) Architect/Urban(Planner( de)liason)douce’)Centre8ville,) 20/12/13)
Paris)&)Beirut) CBCMED(SAIDA(
IDF,)Beirut))
Ambassador,)Permanent)
Honourable) Saint)Joseph)
Interview(D( Diplomat( Delegation)of)Lebanon)to) N/A( 09/01/14)
KARAM)Khalil) Univerity)
UNESCO)
Representative)of)the)
Legal(Expert/Quality( Association)for)the) Alternative(Plan(Fouad(
Interview(E( NOUJAIM)Raja)) ))N/A( 14/12/13)
Controller( protection)of)Lebanese) Boutros(
Heritage)(APLH))
Direction)Generale)des)
Interview(F( RIFAI)Khaled)) Civil(Servant( Antiquités)(DGA),)Lebanese) ))N/A( ))N/A( 22/10/13)
Ministry)of)Culture)
Editor8in8Chief)
of)AlCBia!WalC
Secretary)General,)Arab) Tanmia)8
Interview(G( SAAB)Najib) Environment(Specialist( Forum)for)Environment)and) leading)pan8 ))N/A( 27/02/14)
Development)(AFED)) Arab)magazine)
on)sustainable)
development(
127!
!
(
Other(or(
Interview( Urban(heritage( Interview(
Name( Training( Current(position( Former(
Reference( development(projects( date(
Position(
Author)of)Saïda:!d’hier!et!
Interview(H( SACY)André)) Doctor( N/A( N/A( 26/11/13)
d’aujourd’hui!(2011))
Lebanese)representative)to)
the)World)Heritage)
Architect/UrbanL Atelier)J)&S)
Interview(I( TABET)Jad) Committee,)UNESCO) CHUD((Tripoli)( 31/01/13)
planner( Tabet)
Vice8President)8)Patrimoine!
sans!Frontière)
International( President)and)spokesman)of)
Interview(J( TARRAF)Giorgio)) )N/A( ))N/A( 12/12/13)
Relations(Graduate( Save)Beirut)Heritage)
Project)Manager)at)Council)
CHUD(–(DGA(Project(
Interview(K( YASMINE)Jean)) Architect( for)Development)&) N/A) 04/11/13)
Manager)
Reconstruction)(CDR))
Lecturer)at)ALBA)(Académie)
Architect/Urban( Libanaise)des)Beaux8Arts)–) Director)of)
Interview(L( YAZIGI)Serge)) CHUD( 19/12/13)
Planner( Lebanese)Academy)of)Fine) MAJAL)
Arts))
Deputy)
Director)of)
Development( the)World) EUROMED(Heritage(4,(
Interview(M( ZOUAIN)Georges) Principle,)GAIA8Heritage) 13/01/13)
economist( Heritage) SOLIDERE(
Centre,)
UNESCO)
128!
!
Appendix(2(–(Conferences(
!
(
Conference(Title( Organisation( Date( Place( Link(
A( http://www.uvsq.fr/urba
Urban(heritage(and( Le)Centre)d'études)sur)la)
n8heritage8and8
development( mondialisation,)les) Univeristy)of)Versailles)Saint8
28th)January) development8
sustainability:( conflits,)les)territoires)et) Quentin8en8Yvelines)(Guyancourt,)
2013) sustainability8
International* les)vulnerabilités) France))
international8workshop8
workshop( (CEMOTEV))
252687.kjsp )
B(
http://rp.urbanisme.equi
Les(retombées( French)Ministry)of)the)Equality)of)
pement.gouv.fr/puca/age
Plan)Urbanisme) Territories)and)Housing:)French)
économiques(des(sites( nda/programme858juin8
Construction) 5th)June)2013) Ministry)of)Ecology,)Sustainable)
exceptionnels:(enjeux* 20138retombees8
Architecture)(PUCA)) Development)and)Energy)(Grande)
et*limites*de*la*mesure( economiques8sites8
Arche)de)la)Défense,)France))
exceptionnels.pdf )
C( International(
Conference.(
Divercities:(a( http://f.hypotheses.org/w
12th814th) p8
multidisciplinary( Orient)Institute)of)Beirut) Warehouse,)Zico)House,)Mansion)
December) content/blogs.dir/1643/fil
approach.*Contested* &)Goethe)Institute)
2013)
(Beirut,)Lebanon))
es/2013/11/booklet8
Spaces*and*Urban* divercities8FINAL.pdf
Identities,*Beirut,*
)
Cairo*and*Tehran*
!
129!
!
Elisabetta)Pietrostefani!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!Sciences)Po)–)PSIA)
Valuating!Urban!Heritage!in!a!Development!Perspective!!! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!201382014)
Appendix(3a(–(Translated(Legislation(Document(
(
Lebanese)Republic))))))))))))))))))) ) ) )))) )))))))))))))))))))))))))Number)of)Proceedings:)19)
Council)of)Ministers))) ) ) ) ) ) )))))))))))))))))))))))Decision)number:)57)
General)Secretariat))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) ) ) ) ) ))))))))))))Year:)2010)
)
From)the)proceedings)of)meeting)of)the)Council)of)Ministers1)
)
)
Took)place)in:)The)Grand)Serail)(the)Government)Palace)(
Day:)Wednesday))
Date:)10/03/2010)
)
Subject:) The) Ministry) of) Culture) presenting) the) topic) of) the) frozen) demolition) of) the)
heritage)building)within)the)City)of)Beirut))
Documents:)
8)The)legally)binding)decrees)number:)
)) 8) 1057) on) 05/02/1988) (referral) of) a) bill) concerning) the) protection) of) heritage)
buildings))
) 8) 7) on) 20/05/1998) (commissioning) the) Council) of) Development) and)
Reconstruction) to) conduct) a) comprehensive) study) of) the) building) under) the) frozen)
demolition))
) 8) 32) on) 03/03/1999) (commissioning) the) Minister) of) Culture) to) re8conduct) the)
study)of)heritage)building)and)the)formation)of)a)committee)to)this)end)))
) 8)25)on)25/07/2002)(postponing)the)decision)on)the)confirmation)of)prevention)
of)the)demolition)of)heritage)buildings))
8)Letter)number)587)from)the)Ministry)of)Culture)on)11/02/2010)and)its)attachements.)
)
Decision(of(the(Council:(
The) council) reviewed) the) document) listed) above,) and) it) became) apparent) that) the)
Ministry)of)Culture)should)present)the)following:)
% Pursuant)to)decision)number)33)05/02/1998,)the)Council)of)Ministers)decided)to)
commission) the) Council) of) Development) and) Reconstruction) to) conduct) a)
comprehensive)study)of)the)buildings)under)the)frozen)demolition)following)the)
decision)of)the)Ministry)of)Culture.)The)Council)also)recommends)the)release)of)
buildings) not) having) a) heritage) component) and) presenting) the) results) to) the)
Council)in)two)months.)
% Pursuant)to)decision)number)7)on)20/05/1998,)the)Council)of)Ministers)agreed)to)
the)request)of)the)Council)of)Development)and)Reconstruction)to)postpone)the)
date)of)the)study)result)presentation)until)the)end)of)July)1998.)
% Pursuant) to) decision) number) 32) on) 03/03/1999,) and) after) consulting) the) study)
prepared)by)the)Council)of)Development)and)Reconstruction)which)classified)the)
buildings)in)question)in)groups)A,)B,)C,)D,)E,)the)Council)of)Ministers)decided)to)
commission)the)Minister)of)Culture)to)re8conduct)the)study)of)buildings)in)groups)
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1
)I)wish)to)thank)Sarrah)El)Moumouhi)for)kindly)translating)this)text.)
)
130!
!
A,)B,)and)C,)to)form)a)committee)to)this)end,)to)present)the)issue)again)to)the)
Council,)and)to)consider)the)buildings)in)groups)E)and)D)as)not)having)a)heritage)
component)and)freeing)the)properties)therein.))
% The) Committee) formed) in) accordance) with) the) previous) decision) excused) itself)
from)its)duties)leaving)the)status)of)groups)A,)B,)and)C)frozen.))
% As) result) of) the) reviews) of) the) stakeholders) in) the) matter) of) reconsidering) the)
classification)of)their)properties,)the)Ministry)requested)the)Council)of)Ministers)
to)approve)the)confirmation)of)the)frozen)demolition)and)to)form)a)committee)
to) process) the) requests) of) the) reconsideration) of) the) classification.) And)
therefore,) the) study) (commissioned) by) decision) 25) on) 25/07/2002)) was)
postponed,) the) Ministry) of) Culture) renewed) the) request) but) the) Council) of)
Ministers)did)not)take)a)decision)on)the)matter)to)this)day.))
% Based)on)the)above,)the)Ministry)of)Culture)presents)the)issue)to)the)Council)of)
Ministers)again)requesting)the)approval)of)the)following:)
1) Continuing)the)freeze)on)the)demolition)of)the)heritage)buildings)classified)under)
groups)A,)B,)and)C.)
2) Forming) a) committee) headed) by) the) Minister) of) Culture) and) including) the)
membership) of) the) Governor) of) the) City) of) Beirut,) the) Director) General) of)
Antiquities,) the) Director) general) of) Civil) Planning,) and) the) President) of) the)
engineers) Syndicate.) The) mission) of) the) committee) would) be) processing) the)
requests) of) the) reconsideration) of) the) status) of) particular) properties.) The)
Minister) enjoys) the) liberty) to) seek) the) assistance) of) whomever) he) sees)
appropriate) and) having) the) experience) and) expertise) to) participate) in) the)
dealings)of)the)committee)that)are)to)be)referred)up)to)the)Council)of)Ministers.)
Pursuant)to)that,)
And)After)deliberation,)
The)Council)has)decided)the)following:)
1) Approval)of)the)freeze)on)the)demolition)of)the)heritage)buildings)classified)
under)groups)A,)B,)and)C)
2) Altering)the)formation)of)the)committee)formed)under)decision)number)25)on)
25/07/2002)to)reconsider)the)classification)of)the)heritage)buildings)to)include)
the)mayor)of)the)City)of)Beirut)(president)of)the)Municipality))instead)of)the)
Governor)of)the)City)of)Beirut)as)follows:)
)
Minister)of)Culture))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))President)
Director)General)of)Antiquities))))))))))))))))Member)
Director)general)of)Civil)Planning)))))))))))Member)
Mayor)of)the)City)of)Beirut)) Member)
President)of)the)engineers)Syndicate)))))Member)
)
3) Assigning)the)Minister)of)Culture)with)the)task)of)announcing)a)call)for)offers)to)
conduct)a)general)inventory)of)historical)sites)all)the)Lebanese)regions)outside)
131!
!
the)city)of)Beirut,)finalizing)the)inventory)in)Beirut,)and)referring)the)assembled)
suggested)lists)to)the)Council)of)Ministers)to)take)the)appropriate)actions.)
) ) ) ) ) ) Secretary)General)of)the)Council)of)Ministers))
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 8)Signature8))
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Suhail)Bouji)
)
To)be)delivered)to:)
% Their)Excellencies)the)ministers))
% The)Ministry)of)Culture)
% The)Ministry)of)Public)Works)and)Transportation))
% Ministry)of)Interior)and)Municipalities)
% The)Ministry)of)Finance)
% The)Ministry)of)Foreign)Affairs)and)Expatriates)
% Directorate)General)of)the)Presidency)of)the)Republic)
% Directorate)General)of)the)Presidency)of)The)Council)of)Ministers))
% National)Archives)
% The)Information)Center)
% Archives))
) ) ) ) ) ) ) Beirut))
(
(
Appendix(3b(–(5(category(division(of(listed(heritage(houses((Beirut)(
(
Group( Standards( No)of)
Properties(
A( Includes)buildings)associated)with)historical)events)or)the)legacy)of) 34)
historic)persons,)or)which)have)distinctive)architectural)elements)and)
high)artistic)values.)These)buildings)are)generally)in)good)condition)and)
are)on)large)properties)and)require)minimal)repair)work.)
B( Includes)buildings)not)associated)with)historical)events,)but)containing) 127)
high)architectural)values)and)reflect)a)certain)time)period)or)a)certain)way)
of)construction.)
C( Includes)buildings)similar)to)group)B)but)having)suffered)damages)due)to) 48)
the)war)or)the)lack)of)maintenance)the)addition)of)sections)that)distorted)
the)original)shape.)
D( Includes)buildings)that)do)not)have)high)architectural)values)but)include) 161)
some)of)the)features)of)a)time)period,)a)particular)construction)
technique,)or)a)specific)school)of)architecture.)
E( Include)buildings)that)do)not)have)historical)or)architectural)values)due)to) 89)
one)of)the)following)reasons:)
8)Were)built)during)the)last)50860)years.)
8)Did)not)preserve)architectural)and)heritage)features.))
8)Have)seen)significant)changes)in)the)basic)design.)
8)have)seen)the)introduction)of)new)materials)in)large)quantities.)
8)Pose)a)threat)to)public)safety)from)a)structural)point.)
8)Require)large)amount)money)to)maintain.)
132!
!
Elisabetta)Pietrostefani!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Sciences)Po)–)PSIA)
Valuating!Urban!Heritage!in!a!Development!Perspective!!! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!201382014)
Appendix(3c(–(Example(of(Khatib(and(Alami(Listings(
(
Generated by CamScanner 133!

!
Elisabetta)Pietrostefani!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Sciences)Po)–)PSIA)
Valuating!Urban!Heritage!in!a!Development!Perspective!! !! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!201382014)
!
!
Generated by CamScanner
!
!
!
Generated by CamScanner
134!
!
Elisabetta)Pietrostefani!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Sciences)Po)–)PSIA)
Valuating!Urban!Heritage!in!a!Development!Perspective!! ! !!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!201382014)
Appendix(4a1(–(Map(of(Saïda((Soap(Museum)(
(
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1!Map!taken!from!Saïda’s!soap!museum.!
135!
!
Elisabetta)Pietrostefani!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Sciences)Po)–)PSIA)
Valuating!Urban!Heritage!in!a!Development!Perspective!! ! !!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!201382014)
Appendix(4b(–(Urban(heritage((UH)(List(of(Saïda:(types(and(characteristics((Interview(H)2(
This!table!my!first!attempt!at!the!identification!of!urban!heritage!in!Saïda!(both!individual!buildings!and!urban!ensembles)!
!
Level(of(
Type(of(UH( Function( Use(
fragility(
Public!&!
listed(1)!
Private!&!
listed(2)!
Private!&!not!
listed!(3)!
Ensemble!(4)!
Patrimonial!
Urban!
Residential!
Religious!
Commercial!
Original!
Monument!
Archaeo!
Garden!
Street!
Path!
Hotel!
Restaurant!
Shop!
Office!
No( Name( photo(
Medium!
High!
Low!
1) Castle)of)the)Sea)) ?) !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! ((
2) Château)de)la)Terre) )?) !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! ((
19) Greek8Catholic)Church)) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) ))
Handé)(exterior)&)interior)
)) road))!"#$%&)&'#&()%))) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) ))
39) Debbaneh)Palace) )) ?) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) ?) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) ))
)) Sacy)Fondation) )) ?) ?) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )?) ?) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) ))
6) Al8Hammoud)Palace) )) )) )) )) )) ?) )) )) )) )) )) )) )?) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) ))
9) Al8Barani)Mosque) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) ?) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) ))
20) Greek8Catholic)Church) )) )) ?) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) ))
21) Greek8Orthodox)Church) )) )) ?) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) ))
)) Entry)to)the)Jewish)quarter) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) ))
46) Dar)Hammoud) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) No)
47) Audi8)Soap)Museum) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) ))
45) Riad)Al8Solh)Palace) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) No)
56) De)Zweitini)Garden) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) ))
40) Fakhreddine)Palace) ?) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) ))
(1))National) (2))Protected)by)local)jurisdiction) (3))Recognised)by)society)as)heritage) (4))Building)&)fabric)
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ) )
2!This!table!was!designed!in!collaboration!with!Maria!Mounzer,!GAIAFheritage.!
136!
!
Elisabetta)Pietrostefani!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Sciences)Po)–)PSIA)
Valuating!Urban!Heritage!in!a!Development!Perspective!! ! !!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!201382014)
Level(of(
Type(of(UH( Function( Use(
fragility(
Public!&!
listed(1)!
Private!&!
listed(2)!
Private!&!not!
listed!(3)!
Ensemble!(4)!
Patrimonial!
Urban!
Residential!
Religious!
Commercial!
Original!
Monument!
Archaeo!
Garden!
Street!
Path!
Hotel!
Restaurant!
Shop!
Office!
No( Name( photo(
Medium!
High!
Low!
23) Eglise)Maronite) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) ))
15) Mosquée)Al)–Omari8El)
Kabir) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) ))
34) Hammam)Al)Sabeh)Banat) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) ))
a) Place)Mosquée)&)Khan) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) ))
11) Mosquée)Bab8El8Saray) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) ))
8) Khan)Al8Saray) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) ))
35) Maison)AKRA) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) ))
30) Hammam)Al)mir) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) ))
3) Khan)Al8Franj) ?) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) ))
22) Eglise)Latine) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) ))
((2))Protected)by)local)
(1))National) jurisdiction) (3))Recognised)by)society)as)heritage) (4))Building)&)fabric)
( ) )
(
137!
!
Elisabetta)Pietrostefani!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Sciences)Po)–)PSIA)
Valuating!Urban!Heritage!in!a!Development!Perspective!! ! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!201382014)
Appendix(5a(–(Visual(impact(of(the(Fouad(Boutros(Highway((before(and(after)(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
!
138!
!
Elisabetta)Pietrostefani!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Sciences)Po)–)PSIA)
Valuating!Urban!Heritage!in!a!Development!Perspective!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!201382014)
Appendix(5b(–(Fouad(Boutros(Highway(vs.(Fouad(Boutros(Park(
(
139!
!
Elisabetta)Pietrostefani!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Sciences)Po)–)PSIA)
Valuating!Urban!Heritage!in!a!Development!Perspective!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!201382014)
!
Concept d’Aménagement de l’Espace Public Introduction
Appendix!6!–!The!inclusion!of!public!spaces,!green!areas!and!alternative!circulation!
methods!through!the!Liason'Douce,!IdF!project.!
La liaison douce jouera le rôle d’un puissant levier de recomposition du tissu urbain de la capitale à l’instar des processus engagés par de nombreuses villes
européennes et méditerranéennes. Ce projet constitue une occasion inespérée pour Beyrouth de mettre en cohérence sa structure spatiale en la dotant d’une trame
! verte, « qualitative », apte à assurer à la fois la qualité, la lisibilité de son espace urbain et une mobilité efficace des citadins.
!
7
!
!
!
!
140!
!

Valuating Urban Heritage in A Development Perspective - Elisabetta Pietrostefani

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Valuating Urban Heritage in A Development Perspective - Elisabetta Pietrostefani

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sciences Po PSIA – Paris School of International Affairs

Master in International Development

VALUATING URBAN HERITAGE in a DEVELOPMENT

Academic Year 2013/2014

For development policies, cultural heritage is seen as an asset on account of its

AFD French Development Agency

METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH DESIGN ..................................................................................... 14

CHAPTER 1 – APPLYING THEORY & LITERATURE..................................................................... 20

CHAPTER 2 - URBAN HERITAGE IN LEBANON ............................................................................. 58

CHAPTER 3 – ILLUSTRATING THE VERNIÈRES (2012) GRID IN LEBANON ....................... 87

RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................114

Diagram 1 – Survey respondents’ summary statistics p.8-9

Table 1 – Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape (10th November 2011)

Map 1 – Beirut Constituencies

‘Malmené par la guerre, le patrimoine paraît dangereusement exposé à

of sustainable development principles (UNESCOPRESS, 2011). In 2009, the World Bank

‘human development’ and giving priority to employment, education, health and

A four-month research period in Lebanon highlighted the primacy of context.6

usefulness of valuations and consequently inadequate recommendations for project or

METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH DESIGN

Diagram 1 – Survey respondents’ summary statistics

CHAPTER 1 – APPLYING THEORY & LITERATURE

1.1.1.1 Urban Heritage: a living environment

1.1.1.2 International definitions and inscriptions

Theoretical urban heritage definitions have led to institutionalised international

This recommendation can be seen as an additional tool to integrate conservation

Moreover, its comprehensive nature, including both historic and contemporary

Table 1 – Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape (10th November 2011)

Country Cultural Of Which Classified as WHS (date)

The difficulty of the implementation of such recommendations locally is

WHS Year Type/Criteria

Site Year Proposed Criteria

Ensemble of the Natural Site of the Valley of Nahr 1996 (iv)

1.1.1.3 Heritage as social construct: Designation vs. Appropriation

Defining heritage as a social construct is especially relevant in moderately

in itself (Poulot, 2006). It consequently establishes the un-designation or disregard for

very difficult as we shall see in Chapter 2 (Vernières, 2011, p. 12). Appropriation is

1.1.2 The role of urban heritage in development

1.1.2.1 An instrument for economic development

In many ways, Lebanon is a perfect candidate to develop a rich tourism sector,

Diagram 2 – Cultural Heritage: A resource for society

*Table expanded from Licciardi (2010)

Urban heritage should therefore be embedded in a framework of sustainable

1.1.2.2 The inclusion of Heritage in International Development Goals

The potential role of heritage in sustainable development has been recognised

1.1.2.3 Public Policies and Development Programmes

Diagram 3 - World Bank loans for conservation or revalorisation

$3000 000 $2584 570

1.2 ECONOMIC VALUATION OF URBAN HERITAGE

1.2.1.1 The necessity for economic valuation

The OECD defines evaluation as:

‘the process of determining the worth or significance of a development

As stipulated by this definition, the necessity of evaluation for heritage policy or

1.2.1.2 Economic value of heritage and its limits

Diagram 4a – Illustrating economic and intrinsic values (1)

*Diagram taken from Zouain (2002).

In this graph resides the paradox of heritage in economy: there is an opposition

Diagram 4b – Illustrating economic and intrinsic values (2)

*Diagram taken from Zouain (2002)

1.2.1.3 Total Economic Value

Diagram 5 –Total Economic Value of Urban Heritage

Table 5a – Illustration of use-values in Lebanon (Beirut)

*Inspired by Ost (2009) and fieldwork