but if we ask this question then we must ask the same of all heritage assets, how much modification and change of use is permitted before a building can no longer be considered heritage? In the latter case the convention seems to be how much of the fabric is retained, by this criterion the majority of conversions would not be sufficient to remove heritage status, rather they should be seen as part of the life history of the building.

@Timothy Edward Jones thanks a lot

Amira Zatir, this should be helpful: https://heritagecouncil.vic.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/HV_IPAWsinglepgs.pdf

@Ivan Anthony Henares I am so grateful

Yes

Its an interesting question that has been debated in heritage circles for decades. In Perth, we have a large industrial site, the former WA Goverment Railway Workshops at Midland, which has been empty since the Workshops closed in 1994. From 1998-2006 I led a project to collect and preserve the site's history and pubish research, resulting in several books, academic papers and digital resources as well as oral history and archival collections. In 2004 the site was declared a heritage icon and placed on the State Heritage Register, but some "modifications" had already been made (the demolition of the building where women made munititions during WWII being one). One building has been partially repurposed as a medical centre (a building built within one of the main blocks). The exteriors of the main buildings have been cleaned and mostly retain their original appearance. Some of the buildings have been sold, and some of the empty space has been converted to other uses, but this seems necessary. Much of the site is still unused, with vast empty spaces. The site is too big to retain all buildings as a museum, unless someone was prepared to put significant amounts of money into it. I still have hopes that some part of the site will be converted into a rail heritage museum. I believe that recognising the site's heritage value, even if parts of it are altered, was the salvation of the Workshops; otherwise I think the buildings would have been demolished and there would be nothing left to mark the State's largest industrial site.

Bobbie Oliver your comment about the Perth site being 'too big to retain all buildings as a museum' is a timely reminder as to how much modification of a site we accept without regarding it as no longer being a 'heritage' feature. Here in the UK we have many Castles and Stately Houses that were once centres of vast estates that now stand in small grounds bereft of any hint of the original size or working. If we can consider such to still be heritage then I believe that it increases the credibility of modified buildings being so regarded.

@Bobbie Oliver thank you so much

international charters, published by organizations issued by UNESCO or others, have never mentioned or updated this question and problem. it's time to think about adding this kind of building, in order to converse and restore them.

Thank you all for this interesting debate.

There are two main ways how we can perceive immovable heritage. Firstly, as something what has been completed in the past. Its development has been finished and we are but curators. In that case, our goal is to safeguard its value and structural integrity. Secondly, we can acknowledge that architectural heritage is still living architecture. Many, if not most, of the heritage buildings went through centuries of development, reconstruction and changes. Are we really allowed to stop this progress?

Of course, as in all things, the truth is somewhat in the middle. It is especially true in case of industrial heritage. Original function of these large buildings and complexes will most likely not return. That is why another use must be found. Naturally, with this “new use” are connected physical changes in structure of the buildings. Conversion is one way how to achieve these changes.

To answer your original question: We can perceive conversion of historical buildings as a part of natural development or evolution of buildings, social needs and in the end history itself. In that case, we can carry out conversion of industrial building and still consider it as heritage (provided it was considered as heritage prior to the conversion).

I agree with the views presented by David Pecháček .

The industrial building heritage is particularly at risk in comparison with other building heritage. It is clear that the industrial architectural heritage in developed countries has survived great economic and social changes and shocks in past decades, which are also reflected in the management of space and

the real estate market. Due to the threat, it is difficult to ensure a use for the industrial heritage, especially in cases in which we are confronted with the collapse of factories and whole branches of industries.

Much more in:

Article Adaptive Re-use of the Built HeritageObnova i prenamjena gra...

@Ljubo Lah thanks a lot

I also think we could, actually, I think we should (in certain specific cases of course, with heritage buildings it's really impossible to generalise). The one that you highlight is, in my opinion, and for my knowledge, an interesting point of view. We know that the inverse process to what you describe (1.considering them heritage and therefore 2. conserving them) works, both for the buildings and for the community. What I want to point out is that today we could benefit from a sort of mindset inversion: taking care of the existing (conserving and repurposing as needed in a balanced fashion) in order to be appreciated as heritage by the community today and the future generations. All industrial structures own a level of heritage value in their history and their material, and the material value is accentuated by another great deal of the common days: the reach for sustainable development. It is always a much higher cost for the environment to demolish an existing structure and build a new scheme than to preserve what is already there, let alone if we are talking of obliterating spaces and technologies that are more compatible than the new ones. The landfill fills up with building material, the polluting manufacturing processes of certain post-industrial composite elements increase, the building surfaces get maximised decreasing the social urban value of the land, the big developers game of office spaces and hotels steps up. An existing structure, with a story that just needs to be told, can be lifted and repurposed to reach better harmony between the land and our lives on it. The highlighted heritage value is a plus in all senses.

Without a doubt! We need to consider that some modern concepts, and also innovations, like the concept of social housing, or steel/iron structure, all were utilised in industrial buildings/environments. For instance, the concept of social housing could be found in The Ideal City of Chaux by Claude-Nicolas Ledoux (1773-1806) which was a company town, and some part of it is still with us as a valuable heritage.

In respose to Timothy Edward Jones (3 April), I am amazed at how much has been preserved in Britain, but (as you mention) its mainly stately homes and castles. I suppose I'm a bit of a compromiser and I would say that a preserved building without its surrounds is still a valid heritage site, and certainly better than demolishing it. One example here is Lanyon Homesead, south of Canberra, which once was set amid many acres of farmland and now is almost within sight of Canberra's suburban sprawl. Regarding industrial sites, I was impressed by the STEAM museum in the former Swindon Railway Workshops and hoped we might be able to produce something like that in Midland. I've heard of a huge industrial site that's been preserved in the USA, I think it is a steel mil, but the Americans seem to have many more philanthropists who are prepared to bankroll such sites.

In my opinion the best approach to heritage is found in Historic England:

https://historicengland.org.uk/

You can find there a very good insight of heritage, why does it matter to society and ways managing changes.

I, personally like very much:

https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/conservation-principles-sustainable-management-historic-environment/

@Pedro Iglesias Picazo, it is so original and pleasant the way in which we convert the industrial building. I like this approach. thank you so much

It is an important question. In my opinion the answer is yes if the conversion is done with respect for the heritage values. If we do not allow reconversion , a series of industrial buildings will undoubtedly disappear. In my region I am thinking, among other things, of the mining heritage with its huge buildings. Fortunately a number of buildings have already received an other function and are safe for the future.

Do you have concrete examples of good performance according to sustainable development?

@Robert Nouwen Do you have concrete examples of good performance according to sustainable development?

If you intend "social sustainability" I have an example I am very (emotionally) close to:

http://www.ogrtorino.it/en/locations/ogr-cult

This important space in Turin (Italy) is not just a beautiful example of how a crucial industrial space of a city (symbol of national industrialism itself) has been converted to a creative social space that showcases from art to science of any kind; the administration took a step further in adapting the space for supplying extremely needed healthcare features in this awful COVID19 emergency.

Please check it out:

(the website and the beautiful timelapse of temporary hospital building)

https://nuovasocieta.it/il-timelapse-della-costruzione-dellospedale-alle-ogr-di-torino/

@Candida Rolla the conversion was so successful, the space created and transformed does not give the impression that it was an industrial building.

thank you so much

I have been dealing with this subject for some 25 years... From the heritage conservation perspective, to industrial buildings apply the same rules which are applicable to other types of heritage. There are, however, significant differences. Among them, the most important seem to be great concentration of production buildings (typical for traditional industries) and their irreversable loss of original uses (technical progress, globalisation, etc.) - this means it is necessary to convert such buildings in order to maintain them. Otherwise, such structures may become a burden for a local society, and as such, their acceptance would diminish.

Industrial buildings that show architectural and historical qualities must be considered as heritage, and in many cases they are, and consequently they need to be converted to be fully exploited and appreciated. The two main potentialities of the heritage industrial buildings are the (mentioned) quality, and the strategic location. Often industrial buildings are located in brownfield areas, once on the outskirts of cities, nowadays in central areas. So their conversion can be the start of development operations to improve the quality of the cities in which we live.