is temporary use a viable strategy for the conservation of historic buildings and in what ways can temporary use contravene or contribute to the established principles and priorites in conservation, if you have country specific anecdotes this is also interesting... thank you
Note : Temporary use here is defined as a movement (see Urban Catalyst or Temporary City by Bishop and Williams), rather than an acitivty defined by a specific timeframe. The temporary use movement is based on >intention> : an intentionally time-limited use which, due to financial constraints, promotes maximum adaptability (working wihtin existing conditions) and community enagagement (social versus financial capital).
Usage is the best strategy for preservation of historical heritage and in many cases also natural heritage. That such use is temporary, intermittent or continuous it depends on the condition of that asset or liability or potential damage caused by use.
Sorry Mallory, perhaps I will be wrong but in your question i can not understand if you are taking about CONSERVATION of Biodiversity or CONSERVATION of the historical heritage.
However, in any case the use is an important factor for the education and research, as well as produce economic benefic to local people by tourism activities.
As said above, the best best strategy for the preservation of historical heritage assets to to keep the asset in use. Ideally in place and unchanged. Any adapative (re-)use usually comes with an impost caused by adaptation, and thus usually at some cost to the integrity of the asset.
Most importantly, the cultural significance assessment of the historical heritage assets will drive what activities and management actions (incl. adaptive re-use) are acceptable. Thus there is no hard and fast answer to your question.
The impact of the temporary reuse can be physical, but also intangible such as in the the re-use of religious structures by other denominations, other religions and secular parties. A discussion of this aspect can be found in 'The Future of Defunct Religious Buildings: Dutch Approaches to Their Adaptive Reuse' (see below)
The issue here is to what extent the temporary use that is proposed, requires an alteration or adaptation of the existing fabric. If none, then there is no issue. But even if only small, then the cumulative effect may be significant.
Ideally, a set of criteria for temporary use should be developed that govern the acceptance or denial of the proposed use. Also, what is deemed temporary here. This needs some clarification. For example, a proposed 10-year use period of a 300-year old structure could well be considered 'temporary' ....
Article The Future of Defunct Religious Buildings: Dutch Approaches ...
expanding Loes' post there is also a philosophical question regarding what can be accepted as preservation by reuse, in some cases while reuse would preserve the fabric, and this always seems preferable to allowing derelict buildings to decay through neglect, however, it does not allow for cultural sensitivities,
for instance in the case of religious buildings we have the difficulty of offending the original community if in the interests of preserving the structure another faith are allowed to worship there, this has historically been the main way such buildings were conserved in times of conflict, e.g. Hagia Sophia, Al Aqsa and the numerous churches that survived the reformation by being appropriated,
archaeology has run into this problem before with certain Amer Indian groups, Moslem groups and Christians all considering that destruction of remains was preferable to them being transferred by deliberate excavation, I doubt such groups would welcome preservation of physical infra structure if it meant handing it over to a group of which they disapproved
good points here.
clearly, current owners (as well as previous owners/ cultural stakeholders need to be consulted. That is a given that went without saying.
The issue of the (re-) use of spiritual spaces (churches) is complex and depends on specific situations. A great diversity exists. The Dutch examples cited above are illuminating in that regard
it is probably more complex than that Dirk since the definition of stake holder itself is not without complications,
in Europe we usually use a legally based definition of stake holder based on what can be proved in a court of law according to pre defined methods,
however, many groups feel that this excludes them, in some cases as per the Amer Indians this based on a genuine cultural belief, however, in many cases it is either politically motivated or just people attention seeking/trying to gain publicity, from personal experience as a field and museum archaeologist there is a lot of this with New Age groups,
in point of fact here in Britain there is, or at least was, no requirement to consider this, if a building had a Christian usage then it was at the disposal of the CofE and if not there were no legal safe guards regarding religious buildings change of use, although any planner would be unwise to ignore the potential for media, or court, allegations of hate crimes/discrimination that this would stir up,
the problem is particularly acute with spiritual buildings/sites since I doubt it is possible to reconcile the differing claims here,
even with secular there can be problems, particularly with regards to allegations of fossilisation of communities in the interests of preserving physical remains
I've worked for the Navajo Nation for 30+ years now as an archaeologist. Under the Historic Preservation Department we restored an old BIA building to its original condition to be used as our department headquarters in about 1997. It was not a religious building by any means and it is being used permanently now to house important documents and reports.
When protecting traditional and historic Navajo structures such as hogans, sweat lodges, even brush shelters which are used for a variety of religious ceremonies, we are careful to take into account what the local community has to say about such "protection" or re-use. Brush shelters are normally dismantled after use, and the same areas are often re-used. However, some projects like road construction cannot go around such structures or use-areas and some give-and-take is necessarily called for. In most cases the community will choose the road over a traditional property. This is understandable from their perspective to modernize and reap the benefits of modern roadways and economic development.
Please have a look at the attached publication on Heritage and Resilience and you will find some answers!
Article Ripp, Matthias; Lukat, Andrew H. (Translation)(2014): Crisis...
As a new user, sorry not quite sure how to respond to just one person but thank you all so much for your input, please see the short description for a definition of what is meant by Temporary Use. Many of your answers have been VERY helpful. I would be interested in hearing more experience based examples of cases where time-limited uses were beneficial (or not) to historical buildings, but some examples given so far are excellent. Thank you again ! M
The (temporary) re-use of historic buildings is in many ways a question of regulation and public acceptance for the new destined function. I noticed that 'where there is money, there is an endeavor to build new buildings'. For example the city of Bruges in Belgium, it was poor from approx. 1600 until 1885, and even after that it had relatively little funds for renewal. The result is a (look-a-like) medieval city center. Compare it to Antwerp that has been thriving (with ups and downs) during the last four centuries, and you get a mixture of styles. Even as I'm writing this, historic buildings and interiors are being relinquished for they have little or no function anymore, or, the pressure for a better economic return of a site is too big.
If there is no 'valid' new function, all too often political and/or commercial decision makers will have the building/site demolished to build something new. Wikipedia has for almost every country, and even cities, a page that lists the broken down buildings that had specific esthetic or public heritage value.
So on topic, temporary use is definitely a very valuable trend. It might show decision makers the meaning and possibilities of cultural heritage. The true challenge here is the link we as conservators have to make by pairing history and heritage esthetics with the economic trends such as sustainability, ecology and marketing.
Dear Mallory,
take into account that temporary use of buildings involves a well-planned maintenance. In the architectural and engineering practise maintenance is often underestimated, and this could compromise the effectiveness of the reuse strategy. If you want to deepen this aspect, take a look at Stefano Della Torre's works.
Best regards from Italy!