THE HISTORY OF URBAN CONSERVATION

This is an example of the ‘dominant ideology

thesis’ first formulated by Marx and Engels
(1864)

‘the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch

the ruling ideas, i.e., the class which is the
ruling material force of society, is at the same
time its ruling intellectual force.
These examples of elite activity were often
isolated and free-standing, and their impact
upon urban landscapes, now a leading focus of
conservation effort, was relatively small.

Many civic corporations were more interested

in the opportunities for spacious urban
redevelopment afforded by the demolition of
the picturesque but aged building stock.
The attitudes among this small, but influential,
proportion of the population can be seen to have
changed from the end of the eighteenth century to the
present with significant consequences for legislation
and the conserved landscape.

The nineteenth century is portrayed as a period of

gathering momentum, leading to a first phase of
conservation legislation in a number of countries
towards the end of the century.

But, this broad interest and concern remains fixated on

superficial external appearance rather than on
questions of authenticity.
 THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND TO CONSERVATION

• Conservation-related actions have a long

history. It has been suggested that the earliest
actions were spurred almost entirely by
concern, respect, even piety, for the past and
its people.
• Nevertheless, economic influences were
significant at an early date, with a Roman
inscription predating AD63.
Popes Pius II and Leo X took action to preserve
Rome’s monuments in 1462 and 1515
respectively,

it was not until the mid-to late eighteenth

century that the attitudes of the social elite
towards the monuments and inheritance of the
past began to change significantly.
 THE NINETEENTH CENTURY: A KEY PERIOD

Changes in ideas concerning building and landscape styles

are evident in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth
centuries.
The leading architectural style immediately prior to the
Victorian period was Classical,
By the end of the century, however, the prevailing
aesthetic mood had undergone an almost complete
reversal social elite, who had begun to introduce the
aesthetic of the “beautiful’, ‘sublime’ and ‘picturesque’
into late eighteenth-and early nineteenth-century
philosophy and psychology.
The asymmetry and seeming disorder of the
Picturesque was, in some ways, a reaction
against the strict order of Classicism.

These changing attitudes led, towards the end

of the century, to the first general phase of
conservation legislation.

Of singular importance in the change of ideals

from Classical to Picturesque and Gothic is the
architect and writer Augustus W.N. Pugin.
Of similar significance is John Ruskin, and in
particular his book The Seven Lamps of
Architecture (Ruskin 1849).
The last section, ‘obedience’, shows Ruskin
apparently and on avowed revivalist, without
hope or desire of evolving any new, or
contemporary, architectural style.
Ruskin was thus insistent upon revivalism, of Gothic and not
the pagan Grecian-Classical styles.
Another significant architectural theorist was Eugene
Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc. Viollet-le-Duc espoused Gothic
architecture.
His was, however, a rational and mechanistic approach,
rather than the religious interpretation of the Ecclesiologists.
This difference in approach, leaving behind the mysteries of
religion, was not Viollet-le-Duc’s only contribution to the
history of architectural thought.
Of greatest value to conservation, under the heading
‘Restauration’ (vol. VII to his Dictionnaire Raisonne), he
suggested that a new art had been born- that of the
scientific restoration of monuments.
Thus both Ruskin and Viollet-le-Duc are proponents
of High Gothic styles, but for very different reasons.
The influence of William Morris was also of
considerable importance in changing attitude in the
latter part of the nineteenth century. His ideals
were inspired by Gothic architecture, which he saw
as an architecture based on good craftsmanship
provided within the framework of the mediaeval
guild, social organisation and good craftsmanship.
Given this background, it is hardly surprising that in
1877 he founded the Society for the Protection of
Ancient Buildings (SPAB),
Buildings should not be entirely renovated, as
this ‘takes away the appearance of antiquity
from such old parts of the fabric as are left’.

Owing to changed social conditions and

methods of production, it is not possible to
restore faithfully. Even were this possible, it
would be undesirable and deceptive.
The SPAB has advised central government
bodies and local planning authorities on
conservation matters ever since, and indeed
since 1968 they have been on of a small number
of expert bodies to be consulted by statute for
their opinions on such matters.
 EARLY LEGISLATION
• The late nineteenth century can generally be termed
the first period of conservation n legislation, despite
earlier pioneering but isolated enactments. It was not
until 1882 that one such Bill became law in the form of
the Ancient Monuments Protection Act 1882. This was
largely a passive piece of legislation. Although some
monuments could be maintained at public expense,
property owners were under no compulsion to maintain
monuments owned by them. And the types of
monuments qualifying for protection were few and
mainly prehistoric
• Netherlands in 1875 a new department, the
Rijkscommissiei, was charged with overseeing
the preservation of ancient monuments. Again,
as in Britain, this department was small and
without financial resources. It spent much of
its time compiling a list of monuments
(Ashworth 1984:606-7)
• France in 1837 a more authoritative body, the
Commission des Monumentes Historiques, was
established. This spent much of the next 76
years in listing buildings of significance, which
did at least give some measure of protection
• Germany Bavaria and Wurttemberg began official
inventories of ancient monuments in the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries respectively.
Wurttemberg passed the first pioneering statute
governing monument protection in 1790. Friedrich
Wilhelm III of Prussia passed a law in 1855
allowing authorities to intervene where public
buildings of historic significance were threatened.
The first conservation officials employed on a full-
time basis seem to have been in Bavaria (1835)
and Prussia (1843). The Provinces were made
responsible for monument conservation and the
appointment of conservation officials in 1875.
• From even these few examples, it can be seen that most
action came in the mid-to late nineteenth century. The
German states were exceptional in their early action. In
many cases, action was spurred by the pressure of a key
individual, notable examples being Sir John Lubbock in
Britain, Friedrich Schinkel, Head of the Building Authority in
Prussia, whose Memorandum inspired Wilhelm III’s action,
and J. de, Stuers in the Netherland. However, much of the
action at this time concerned ancient monuments rather
than buildings. These were mostly individual features, and
almost exclusively pre-mediaeval in date. There was no
notion of the conservation of groups of buildings, or of
entire townscapes. Early legislation was also particular
toothless, and its principal achievement in many countries
was the commencement of detailed inventories of
monuments.