Cultural Sustainability in Architectural Conservation. A Cross-Cultural Study. by Daria Forsiuk

CULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY IN ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION A CROSS-CULTURAL STUDY

BY: DARIA FORSIUK TO: CATHERINE KILCOYNE BACHELOR OF APPLIED TECHNOLOGY (HONOURS) ARCHITECTURE â&#x20AC;&#x201C; PROJECT AND FACILITY MANAGEMENT CONESTOGA COLLEGE ITAL

APRIL 2019

ABSTRACT The thesis is concerned with the subject of sustainability and how it can be translated into the realm of architectural heritage conservation. The issue of sustainability in the built environment has become a key concern in today’s architectural practice. Culture, as a set of shared values, traditions, beliefs, and lifestyles that are unique to a certain community, has been widely recognized as an integral part of any sustainable development. This supports the need to discuss the role of cultural sustainability as part of today’s sustainable development agenda. Cultural sustainability will be defined as “ensuring the continuing contribution of heritage to present through the thoughtful management of [on-going] change responsive to historic environment and to the social and cultural processes that created it” (Matero, 2001). Through an analysis of literature, the research explores the methods and approaches to conservation in the two different cultures: the West, represented by Euro-Canadian approach, and the East, represented by Japanese approach. A comparative cross-cultural research draws a holistic picture of interpretations of the role of architectural heritage in today’s societies and therefore, how it should be treated in each context. An analysis of literature summarizes the state of knowledge available on the different approaches and underpinning philosophies of preservation in the Eastern culture, represented by Japan, and the Western culture, represented by Europe and Canada. Interviews conducted with architecture professionals inform the current state of Canadian conservation. In addition, three case studies from Japan, Germany, and Canada explore the integration of conservation techniques applied in different contexts bridging the gap between scientific knowledge and real-world application. The research arrives to a conclusion that through the expansion of perspective on what carries value, including historic fabric, context-specific values, and communities’ associations with their heritage, professionals can integrate cultural sustainability in their practice of recovering historic buildings. The living heritage approach, as opposed to the predominant retention and recovery approach, promises the richest and most sustainable cultural continuity. The living heritage approach relates to ongoing creation of culture through active use and care of heritage by the local communities having immediate connection to their heritage. Living heritage counteracts the artefact-based approach. Rather than preserved and retained, the culture is continually recreated through buildings as “living realities”. This is the most viable and vibrant approach to cultural sustainability in architectural heritage conservation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my very great appreciation to Catherine Kilcoyne, my thesis advisor, for her invaluable constructive critique, patient guidance, and enthusiastic encouragement during my research. I wish to acknowledge Laird Robertson, Annabel Vaughan, Jan Kubanek, and Melissa Stickl Stewart for their time and effort to contribute to this research through interviews and helpful advice.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................................................................. 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................................................... 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................................................................................ 5 LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................................................................. 7 GLOSSARY OF TERMS...................................................................................................................................................... 10 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................................. 12 LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................................................................................... 14 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................................................................. 15 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................................ 16

THE MEANING BEHIND CONSERVATION ............................................................................................................... 18 DEFINITION OF PRESERVATION, CONSERVATION, AND SUSTAINABILITY............................................. 19 THE HERITAGE DILEMMA .......................................................................................................................................... 19 REASONS FOR CONSERVATION .............................................................................................................................. 19 THREE MAJOR FRAMEWORKS ................................................................................................................................. 21 The Materials-Based Approach ............................................................................................................................... 21 The Values-Based Approach .................................................................................................................................... 22 The Peoples-Based Approach .................................................................................................................................. 24

CULTURAL ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................................................... 28 THE WEST: HISTORIC OVERVIEW OF CONSERVATION PRACTICE ............................................................ 30 Prior To The 20th Century ....................................................................................................................................... 30 The 20th Century........................................................................................................................................................ 31 Canadian Conservation History ............................................................................................................................... 32 THE WEST: CULTURAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................. 34 Dominant Aesthetic: Permanence .......................................................................................................................... 34 Value Of Building Fabric: “Material Fetish” .......................................................................................................... 34 Determining Cultural Significance........................................................................................................................... 34

THE WEST: CURRENT CONSERVATION PRACTICE ........................................................................................... 36 Dominant Approaches And Their Associated Constraints ............................................................................... 36 Challenges Of Contemporary Conservation Practice ........................................................................................ 38 Conservation In Canada ............................................................................................................................................ 38

THE EAST: HISTORIC OVERVIEW OF CONSERVATION PRACTICE .............................................................. 50 Pre-Meiji Period (7th Century – 1868).................................................................................................................. 50 Meiji Period (1868-1912).......................................................................................................................................... 50 Post-WWII (2nd Half Of The 20th Century)........................................................................................................... 51 THE EAST: CULTURAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................... 52 Aesthetic Of Impermanence .................................................................................................................................... 52 Kiku And Kiwari: The Art Of Reproduction .......................................................................................................... 52 Kintsugi (Golden Joinery): Legibility Of Repair .................................................................................................... 52 Wabi Sabi: Value of Aged Surfaces ........................................................................................................................ 52 Spiritual Motives .......................................................................................................................................................... 55 THE EAST: CURRENT CONSERVATION .................................................................................................................. 56 Dominant Approaches and Their Associated Constraints ................................................................................ 56 Challenges of Contemporary Conservation Practice ......................................................................................... 58

CASE STUDY 1: CANADA – OLD POST OFFICE .................................................................................................. 62 CASE STUDY 2: GERMANY – THE NEUES MUSEUM ......................................................................................... 76 CASE STUDY 3: JAPAN – KON-DO (MAIN HALL), HORYU-JI TEMPLE......................................................... 92

CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................................................................. 103 EPILOGUE .......................................................................................................................................................................... 105 REFERENCES APPENDICES

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Elements of Sustainable Development......................................................................................................... 11 Figure 2. Modern Approach Integrating Three Conservation Frameworks.......................................................... 25 Figure 3. Renovated Rotunda of Historic Don Jail. From KPMB Architects (n.d.). ............................................. 39 Figure 4. Original Train Station: View from the Rideau Canal. From ERA Architects (2019). ......................... 43 Figure 5. The New East Faรงade. From Canadian Architect (2019). ....................................................................... 43 Figure 6. General Waiting Room in 1912. From ERA Architects (2019). ............................................................. 45 Figure 7. Renovated General Waiting Room. From Canadian Architect (2019). ................................................ 45 Figure 8. Concourse in 1912. From ERA Architects (2019). .................................................................................... 47 Figure 9. The Senate Chamber in 2019. From ERA Architects (2019).................................................................. 47 Figure 10. Kiwari Method. From Larsen (1994)........................................................................................................... 53 Figure 11. Kiku Drawing. From Larsen (1994). ............................................................................................................ 53 Figure 12. Kintsugi Ceramics. From Monoarte-It (2018). ......................................................................................... 54 Figure 13. Wabi Sabi Interior. From Vervoordt (2010). ............................................................................................. 54 Figure 14. 3-D Concept Diagram. ................................................................................................................................... 61 Figure 15. Site Concept Diagram. From RDH Architects (2014). ........................................................................... 61 Figure 16. Old Post Office in Galt, Cambridge, ON. North-West Rendering. From RDH Architects (2014). .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 62 Figure 17. Original Post Office Building. From Library and Archives Canada Blog (2018) .............................. 63 Figure 18. Old Post Office in 2012. From Hurst (2012). .......................................................................................... 63 Figure 19. Cantilevered New Addition. From RDH Architects (2014).. ................................................................ 63 Figure 20. Site Plan Before Renovations. From RDH Architects (2014). .............................................................. 65 Figure 21. Site Plan Showing the Orientation of the Cantilevered Addition. From RDH Architects (2014). .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 65

Figure 22. View of the Atrium. From RDH Architects (2014). ................................................................................ 65 Figure 23. Contrast of the Old and the New. Photograph by Author. .................................................................. 65 Figure 24. Floor Plans Showing Original, Retained, and New Structure. Created with data from ERA Architects (2014). ................................................................................................................................................................ 67 Figure 25. East-West Section Diagram: Enclosure Gradation. Created with data from ERA Architects (2014). .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 69 Figure 26. Inhabitation and Use of Original vs New Design. Created with data from ERA Architects (2014). .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 72 Figure 27. Circulation Floor Plans. Created with data from ERA Architects (2014). ......................................... 73 Figure 28. Concept Diagram. From David Chipperfield Architects (n.d.).............................................................. 75 Figure 29. Front Facade. From David Chipperfield Architects (n.d.) ...................................................................... 76 Figure 30. The Neues Museum after Bombing. From CortĂŠs (2010). ................................................................... 77 Figure 31. The South-East Wing After Reconstruction. From Bollack (2013). .................................................... 77 Figure 32. Exterior Arcade After Reconstruction. From Bollack (2013)................................................................ 77 Figure 33. Approach Differs from Room to Room Depending on the Condition. From CortĂŠs (2010). ...... 79 Figure 34. Floor Plans Showing New and Retained Structure. From Cortes (2010). ........................................ 81 Figure 35. Cross-Section Through the Staircase Showing New and Retained Structure. From Cortes (2010). .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 83 Figure 36. Inside the Staircase Hall with the New Stair. From Cortes (2010). .................................................... 83 Figure 37. Cross-Section Diagram: Enclosure Gradation. Created with data from David Chipperfield Architects (n.d.). .................................................................................................................................................................... 84 Figure 38. Staircase Hall: Old vs New Staircase. Created with data from David Chipperfield Architects (n.d.). .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 85 Figure 39. Material Pallette of the Greek Courtyard. From Delood (2016). ........................................................ 85 Figure 40. New Structure in the Egyptian Courtyard. From Lintner (n.d.)............................................................ 86 Figure 41. View of the Greek Courtyard. From David Chipperfield Architects (n.d.). ....................................... 86

Figure 42. Inhabitation and Use of the Original vs. New Design. Created with data from Cortes (2010)... 88 Figure 43. Circulation Floor Plans. Created with data from Cortes (2010). ......................................................... 89 Figure 44. View of the Egyptian Courtyard Showing Access from the Lower and Ground Level. From David Chipperfield Architects (n.d.)............................................................................................................................................. 90 Figure 45. View of the Kon-do, Horyu-ji temple near Nara. From Time Travel Turtle (n.d.). .......................... 92 Figure 46. The Map of Horyu-ji Temple. Kon-do is Located in the West Precinct. From Askaen Inc.(n.d.). .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 93 Figure 47. Floor Plan and Section (elements shown in black were replaced by 1954). From Gutschow & Enders (1998). ...................................................................................................................................................................... 93 Figure 48. Saved Original Wood Members Damaged by the Fire in 1949. From Gutschow & Enders (1998). .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 95 Figure 49. Wall Paintings Damaged by Fire in 1949. From Wikipedia (2012). ................................................... 95 Figure 50. Section Diagram: Enclosure Gradation. Created with data from Gutschow & Enders (1998). ... 97 Figure 51. Faรงade Materiality. From Japan Web Magazine (n.d.). .......................................................................... 99 Figure 52. Eaves Detail. From Japan Web Magazine (n.d.). ..................................................................................... 99 Figure 53. Floor Plan Showing Inhabitation and Use. Created with data from Gutschow & Enders (1998). ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 100 Figure 54. Circulation Floor Plan. Created with data from Gutschow & Enders (1998). ............................... 100 Figure 55. Old Post Office Anticipated Conservation Approach (Venn Diagram). .......................................... 101 Figure 56. Neues Museum Anticipated Conservation Approach (Venn Diagram). ......................................... 101 Figure 57. Horyu-ji Temple Anticipated Conservation Approach (Venn Diagram).......................................... 102

GLOSSARY OF TERMS Conservation – all the activities and interventions aimed at protection of heritage so as to retain its cultural significance (Canada's Historic Places, 2003). Culture – a set of shared values, traditions, beliefs, and lifestyles that are unique to a certain community. Cultural Significance – “the aesthetic, historic, scientific, cultural, social or spiritual importance or significance for past, present or future generations…” which is carried through tangible and intangible legacy associated with a certain historic place (ibid). Cultural Sustainability – “ensuring the continuing contribution of heritage to present through the thoughtful management of [on-going] change responsive to historic environment and to the social and cultural processes that created it” (Matero, 2001). Intangible Heritage – knowledge, values and beliefs, collective memories, and traditions associated with tangible heritage that create distinction between the cultures (Soini & Birkeland, 2013, p.216). Intervention – “any action, other than demolition or destruction, that results in a physical change” to a component of a historic building (Canada's Historic Places, 2003). Living Heritage – the concept of heritage that is actively contributing to “vitality of a space” (Stubbs & Thomson, 2017) and is continually used, maintained, and cared for by the immediate community (Poluios, 2010). Phenomenological – emphasizing human experience and interaction with the surrounding environment at a sensorial and emotional level. Preservation – “maintaining the fabric, [form, and integrity] of a place in its existing state and retarding deterioration” (International Council on Monuments and Sites., & Australia ICOMOS, 2013). Rehabilitation – “the action or process of making possible a continuing or compatible contemporary use for a historic place, or of an individual component, through repair, alterations and/or additions, while protecting its heritage value.” (Canada's Historic Places, 2003) Restoration – “the action or process of accurately revealing, recovering or representing the state of a historic [building] … as it appeared at a particular period in its history, while protecting its heritage value.” (ibid) Sustainable Development – development aimed at integrating social, environmental, and economic aspects while “meeting present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet theirs” (Rodwell, 2003). Tangible Heritage – physical cultural heritage, such as buildings, monuments, and natural landscapes (Soini & Birkeland, 2013, p.216).

Figure 1. Elements of Sustainable Development.

INTRODUCTION With the sustainability movement gaining strong presence in all domains of human activity, new developments become increasingly concerned with the sustainable aspect of the built environment. Sustainable development can be defined as the one “addressing social, environmental, and economic issues in an integrated way, meeting present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet theirs” (Rodwell, 2003). This thesis begins with the important premise that the term “development” not only implies economic growth but also “a means to achieve a more satisfactory intellectual, emotional, moral and spiritual existence” (ICOMOS, 2011). What role can culture play in achieving sustainable development? For this thesis, culture is defined as a set of shared values, traditions, beliefs, and lifestyles that are unique to a certain community. Today, culture is consistently mentioned as an integral part of a sustainable development. Responding to emotional and spiritual aspects of development, or evolution, culture can be considered as the fourth pillar along with the social, economic, and ecological dimensions (ICOMOS, 2011). Culture may even act as a foundation – a cornerstone to all of them, without which no sustainable development can truly fulfil its aims (Soini & Birkeland, 2013) (Figure 1). If sustainable development requires consideration of culture, this supports the need to discuss the role of cultural sustainability as part of today’s sustainable development agenda. The key question the thesis aims to explore how this movement toward sustainability can be translated into the realm of architectural heritage conservation. How can cultural sustainability enrich and frame our approach to architectural heritage? Therefore, for this thesis, cultural sustainability includes prolonging the useful life of heritage through evolution that is sensitive to its historic and cultural context. Cultural sustainability is aiming to culturally enrich present and future generations. As defined by Matero, cultural sustainability is about “ensuring the continuing contribution of heritage to present through the thoughtful management of [on-going] change responsive to historic environment and to the social and cultural processes that created it” (2001). Every cultural context embodies different philosophies and values, and hence different approaches to preserving the past. This is especially relevant, when we consider such two fundamentally different cultures as the East (represented by Japanese approach in this research), and the West (represented by EuroCanadian approach). As Soini and Birkeland state, “there is no objective truth about the aims and character of development; rather, there are diverse perceptions that need to be taken into consideration” (2013). Therefore, it becomes increasingly interesting to explore these perceptions to broaden and enhance our consideration of heritage conservation methods and techniques. This permits possible benefits in an active multiway learning and cross-pollination of ideas among different cultures. A comparative cross-cultural research draws a holistic picture of interpretations of the role of architectural heritage in today’s societies and therefore, how it should be treated in each context.

An analysis of literature summarizes the state of knowledge available on the different approaches and underpinning philosophies of preservation in the Eastern culture, represented by Japan, and the Western culture, represented by Europe and Canada. It determines contrasting and parallel opinions presented in literature and identify potential knowledge gaps. Through discussion and analysis, the thesis then explores the importance and reasons for conservation and common approaches to heritage conservation. Following that, cultural and historic background of the Eastern and Western cultures is examined to define dominant aesthetics and conservation approaches in the two cultures and discuss similarities and differences between them. The discussion concludes with the overview of their respective current state of practice and associated challenges. As a primary research method, interviews inform the reader about the current state of Canadian conservation. In addition, three case studies from Japan, Germany, and Canada explore the integration of conservation techniques applied in different contexts bridging the gap between scientific knowledge and real-world application. Despite the common interpretation of the term â&#x20AC;&#x153;sustainabilityâ&#x20AC;?, this thesis does not aim to cover the environmental aspect of sustainability as it relates to conservation of heritage buildings. The discussion also excludes any economic, legislative, and business considerations of sustainable development projects. The results of the research are meant to inform architects and conservation practitioners about a wide range of approaches to architectural heritage conservation. The findings encourage professionals to consider cultural sustainability as a guiding principle in their practice, and present tools and techniques for its successful implementation in different contexts.

LITERATURE REVIEW The literature review summarized and highlighted key ideas as they relate to the research question. Common causes of conservation are defined by the way heritage can contribute to today’s societies. Multiple authors recognized heritage as a source of identity (Sully, 2015; Soini & Birkeland, 2013; Wells, 2010; Rodwell, 2003) and security (Lynch, 1972), as a means of addressing the adverse effects of globalization (ICOMOS, 2011), and as a driver in the creation of sustainable communities (Matero, 2001; Lynch, 1972). Several theories have been proposed to outline the major approaches to conservation. Wells identifies the two conservation frameworks as “traditional” (or “fabric-centered”) and “contemporary” (or “peoplecentered”) (2003), while Poulios recognizes “materials-based” and “values-based” approaches (2010; 2014, p.19). A more comprehensive description was introduced by Dean Sully as he defines the three major frameworks as “materials-based”, “values-based”, and “peoples-based” conservation developing in chronological sequence (2015). The literature identifies six most common methods of heritage conservation: restoration, preservation, repair, facadism, reconstruction, and rehabilitation (Lynch, 1972; Forster et al., 2018; Rodwell, 2013). The nature of intervention they utilize varies based on the view of cultural value and the purpose served by a historic building. Each approach differs as to the amount of intervention acceptable, the state of a building considered “original”, and the extent to which the loss of integrity can be justified with responding to the needs of today’s society. Authors agree that traditional approach in the Western culture is concerned with fabric and visual perfection of a building more than any other associated values; these aspects are considered a key factor in determining a building’s authenticity (Forster et al., 2018; Wells, 2010; Rodwell, 2003). The traditional view of value is scientific-based, rather than defined by people’s subjective opinions. Debate is still active as to whether striving for perfection achieved through restoration helps preserve authenticity or on the contrary, gives opportunity for conjecture and deceit (Forster et al., 2018). Conservation of heritage in the Eastern culture carries a spiritual and religious connotation, as mentioned by various authors (Larsen, 1994; Stubbs & Thomson, 2017; Forster et al., 2018) The guiding aesthetic concepts are Kiku and Kiwari, Kintsugi, and Wabi-Sabi, and all interventions are evaluated against these three cultural frameworks. The Japanese tradition of periodic reconstruction emphasizes conservation of intangible heritage, such as traditional building tools and techniques. It also encourages community cohesion through their collective involvement in reconstruction practices (ibid). Overall, an extensive literature is available on the topic of architectural conservation. While most authors agree on the common reasons for conservation and the methods utilized, the classification of the current major approaches is not consistent across the literature. The Western conservation is characterized by the focus on conserving authenticity imbedded in the building fabric. The Eastern approach is concerned with retention of intangible aspects of heritage and spiritual connection of buildings to communities.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES The overall intent of this thesis is to inform architecture professionals of possible strategies and considerations for successful implementation of cultural sustainability in architectural conservation projects. The thesis will aim to outline the general picture of the common approaches to conservation, their characteristics and constraints, as well as the rich opportunities for practical application in different contexts.

The following objectives will help achieve the greater goal of the thesis:



Create an overview of cultural and historic background in Eastern and Western cultures, including the dominant aesthetics, view of authenticity and heritage values, and the history of preservation strategies.



Describe the state of current preservation practice, including guiding documents and associated challenges within Eastern and Western cultures.



Synthesize and draw similarities and differences between their respective approaches.



Through cross-cultural case study analysis and comparison, inform the reader of the application of the approaches.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Three methods were used in this research to gather and analyze information that helps answer the main research question. Examination of relevant literature, including scholarly articles, journals, and books, provided an overview of existing approaches, reasons, and challenges of conservation. It summarized the state of knowledge available on the different approaches and underpinning philosophies of preservation in the Eastern culture, represented by Japan, and the Western culture, represented by Europe and Canada. It determined contrasting and parallel opinions presented in literature and identified potential knowledge gaps. Analysis and comparison of three case studies illustrated how the approaches described in the literature review were applied to the real projects. A standardized framework was used to examine the cases, which involved six main criteria: parti (fundamental design approach), nature of interventions, inhabitation and use, movement, structure, and enclosure. The case study analysis incorporated graphic analysis including diagrams, sketches, and pictures. Considering the qualitative nature of the research, interviews were chosen as a primary research method. They were conducted with architects involved in conservation projects and provide up-to-date information on the common challenges, experiences, and perspectives on architectural preservation in Canada.

ETHICS STATEMENT The goal of the interviews was to learn about current conservation practices in relation to cultural sustainability, as well as challenges and opportunities of sustainable conservation in Canada. It consisted of seven questions and estimated to take about half an hour. The research was carried out in compliance with the Tri-Council Policy Statement. Every effort was be made to ensure that no sensitive or private information was exposed in the thesis. The participation was entirely voluntary, and all the professionals agreed to release their name in the thesis paper.

PREAMBLE

THE MEANING BEHIND CONSERVATION This Section will begin the research discussion by introducing the relevant terminology and exploring the intentions of conservation practice. The three major frameworks of conservation will then be identified and analyzed.

• • •

How can preservation, conservation, and sustainability be defined and relate to each other? Why do we conserve heritage in the modernized world? How can we identify the value of heritage through the three major frameworks?

DEFINITION OF PRESERVATION, CONSERVATION, AND SUSTAINABILITY In literature, the terms preservation and conservation are often used interchangeably. In the USA, the term preservation is more common, while in the rest of the English-speaking countries, the term conservation is used to denote the same meaning. In the Japanese language, the distinction between the two terms does not even exist (Larsen, 1994, p.4-5). For the purpose of this thesis, conservation will be used as the broad term, covering all the activities associated with protection of architectural heritage so as to retain its cultural significance. Preservation – is a subset of conservation that involves “maintaining the fabric of a place in its existing state and retarding deterioration” (International Council on Monuments and Sites., & Australia ICOMOS, 2013). According to Rodwell, “sustainability is about prolonging the life of a building in order to contribute to a saving of energy, money and materials, and conservation is about preserving our heritage in order to make the best use of it” (Rodwell, 2003, p.59). Overall, sustainability and conservation can be seen as complementary in terms of their approach to limited resources, whether natural or man-made.

THE HERITAGE DILEMMA There are various ways to treat heritage. But no matter which approach is followed, we cannot retain all memories, or all of our heritage. Otherwise, we would be overwhelmed. This inability to retain everything poses certain questions: • • •

What should be then seen as meaningful, and what should be released? Who should identify the cultural significance of heritage? How should heritage be treated, by whom and for whom?

This dilemma comes from the inconsistency in the way we perceive past and define the purpose of conservation (Lynch, 1972, p.34), especially due to its complex and dynamic nature.

REASONS FOR CONSERVATION INTERNAL AS A SOURCE OF IDENTITY

Architectural heritage, as part of the broader cultural heritage, carries a sense of identity on a scale of local communities (Sully, 2015). It is often associated with “a local sense of place”, which poses sufficient reasons

for its conservation for the future generations (Soini & Birkeland, 2013, p.216; Wells, 2010, p.5) in the face of intensive globalization. It also creates a setting for “human flourishing”, allowing for deep emotional connection to arise and creating a sense of community (Wells, 2010, p.5). According to Rodwell, places rich in historic buildings “are places of cultural identity and achievement… where human cultural traditions have evolved over time and are in a constant state of evolution” (Rodwell, 2003, p.59). This continual state of flux can generate a loss of sense of belonging. Yet, heritage can also create an environment that offers psychological protection.

AS A SOURCE OF SECURITY

The past gives us a sense of security because past is known. In the United States, the primary reason for preservation was to “Americanize” immigrants and encourage national pride. Additionally, it is seen to have a “destressing” effect in society: “Relying on history to maintain coherence and common purpose in moments of stress and disunity is a familiar human tendency” (Lynch, 1972, p.30). The sense of belonging and identity has become even a greater concern with the rapid rates of globalization in the modern world.

EXTERNAL AS A MEANS TO ADDRESS GLOBALIZATION

The International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) is primarily concerned with the issues of globalization and its effect on local cultures: “The effects of globalisation on societies are manifested in the attrition of their values, identities and cultural diversity, and of their tangible and intangible heritage, in the broadest sense” (2011, p.9). They believe that with the correct measures applied to conservation and development of heritage it will be able to “inspire and to build tomorrow’s societies, curbing the negative effects of globalization” (ibid). One of the ways heritage can help individuals feel (connected / rooted in their culture) is by stepping away from the global perspective and bringing the focus on smaller-scale social levels – those of communities and neighbourhoods.

AS A MEANS TO BUILD SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES

Culturally sustainable communities are the ones that have a deep connection to their historical and cultural roots. The active contribution of heritage can aid greatly in their collective formation and flourishing. According to Matero, through preservation of heritage communities one can “explore, reinforce, interpret,

and share their historical and traditional past and present” (2001, p.2). He continues on the sustainability aspect of heritage: “In this view, conservation can and should facilitate a sustainable, long-term relationship with the natural and cultural resources of a place and its people and their associated memories and lifeways” (ibid). Lynch shares this view and adds that masses realized that historic neighbourhoods rich in culture are simply more pleasant to live in; the public also felt it is moral to preserve buildings rather than demolishing them (1972, p.30).

THREE MAJOR FRAMEWORKS Before the exploration of common conservation techniques, the three major frameworks of conservation will be discussed. The materials-based, values-based, and peoples-based approaches developed in sequence and reflect the transition of the role of conservation from “specialist technical service aimed at [con]serving heritage, to a mechanism for the creation and recreation of culture” (Sully, 2015, p. 1). This evolution aligns with the growing presence of the concept of cultural sustainability in heritage conservation. Despite the chronological nature of development of the three approaches identified previously, the transition can also be seen as the broadening of the conservation theory in which all the approaches are incorporated to a different degree recognizing the diversity of ways cultural heritage can be treated (Sully, 2015, p. 7-8).

THE MATERIALS-BASED APPROACH The materials-based conservation is a traditional approach that focuses on the tangible domain of heritage – its physical realm (Sully, 2015). It is founded on the principles of material authenticity, which is defined by Wells as “the presence of construction materials, which are also called “fabric” from certain time periods” (2010, p 5). The main goal is to protect the physical object and its context, while the values are considered as inseparable qualities of the object itself (Sully, 2015, p. 9). Thus, retaining the building fabric equals to retaining its historic and cultural value. This informs the methods and limits of intervention into the fabric: “…minimum intervention, respect for historic evidence, avoidance of falsification, preservation of the original, and reversibility of interventions” (Sully, 2015, p. 9). Since the object itself embodies the heritage value, this approach implies that the universal value of heritage can be identified using scientific knowledge and applied globally, overlooking the role of cultural contexts. Consequently, any alternatives to conserving heritage are deemed “incorrect” (Sully, 2015, p.9)

Despite the fact that this framework is extremely common in conservation practice, it is being criticized for overvaluing of the “informational” and “material” elements of historic conservation underemphasizing the importance of meanings, traditions, and users and their experience. “Experts base their decisions on doctrines that contain static, century-old concepts while most people rely on feelings or an attachment to place to determine value… [which results in] a failure to understand how local populations actually value their historic places” (Wells, 2010, p.5). What if we reconsider the role of conservation as a purely “technical process aimed at resolving the instability of physical fabric” and extend it to the practice of preserving and revealing the cultural value that goes beyond the physical substance? (Sully, 2015, p.9)

THE VALUES-BASED APPROACH The values-based approach recognizes the role of human values in the conservation process. The notion of cultural diversity becomes central to this framework (Sully, 2015, p.10), as it relies on constructed (or ideacentered) authenticity (Wells, 2010). Such authenticity “is rooted in specific socio-cultural contexts [ideas and meanings] and can only be understood and judged within the cultural context to which it belongs” (Sully, 2015, p.10). Thus, not only conservation experts but also various stakeholder groups are involved in determining heritage value of historic buildings. The following means of assessment are utilized to determine the cultural and historic heritage value building upon the materials-based approach: • • •

Understanding of heritage value informed by physical examination Researching historical records Consulting community to include a range of opinions

Once the values are established, they are formulated in a statement of cultural significance, identifying the values of a specific time and place. The statement further informs the decision-making throughout the conservation project (ibid). The advantage of this approach over the materials-based approach is evident, as it “helps to connect communities with the care of heritage, and broadens the focus of the heritage professionals managing the process” (Sully, 2015, p.13).

Materials-based

Values-based

Peoples-based

Universal values

Stakeholder values

Community values

Heritage has “intrinsic value” decoded by experts

Heritage values are ascribed by experts in consultation with stakeholders

Heritage values are context specific, defined by contemporary communities

Decision-making by top-down closed linear expert system

Decision-making by top-down integrated expert systems that seek stakeholder participation, consultation, and dialogue

Decision-making by community-led, people-up systems that seek locally appropriate questions, methods, and solutions

Material heritage takes precedence over contemporary needs of people (tangible value)

Material heritage is balanced with contemporary needs of stakeholders, but the former is still the primary concern (tangible value)

The welfare of contemporary communities takes precedence over material heritage (intangible value)

Conservation aims to produce the “true” object

Conservation aims to produce the “expected” object

Conservation aims to produce the “plausible” object

The goal is to resolve instability of physical object

The goal is to maintain and reveal context-specific cultural values through the physical object

The goal is to empower communities to make the best use of their heritage

The outcome is determined by the physical quality of heritage

The outcome is determined by the values reflected in heritage

The outcome is determined by the impact of heritage on people’s lives

Table 1. Summary of Materials-Based, Values-Based, and Peoples-Based Approaches to Conservation. Adopted from Sully (2015).

The associated difficulty of this approach is the dynamic nature of values. Unlike the physical condition, the values change with the constant evolution of communities, and therefore, are not as easily captured. Ultimately, it is impossible to identify all the values communities see in their heritage resulting in lack of holistic heritage value assessments (ibid). Another problem with this framework established by several authors is a clear disconnect of values between conservation professionals and communities represented by stakeholder groups (Wells, 2010; Poulios, 2010; Sully, 2015). There is no system in place to establish priority of these conflicting values, resulting in favouring of some and not the others (Poulios, 2010, p.173). Even though the input from communities is considered, certain areas of conservation process are still led with a top-down approach. Heritage professionals’ requirements and standardized protocols take priority over the real personal experiences with their heritage. This approach, therefore, has been widely criticized for being overly politicized, with limited involvement of the actual community of users of heritage (Sully, 2015; Poulios, 2010). This poses a question, who should we preserve for? The community of the selected few or for the enjoyment and cultural enrichment of the lives of the general public?

THE PEOPLES-BASED APPROACH The peoples-based approach moves beyond material- and values-based views of conservation, introducing the significance of an every-day relationship that exists between people and their heritage. “The artifact of conservation… is not the conserved object, but the social networks constructed between people and heritage that create meaningful objects, and sustain them into the future” (Sully, 2015, p. 4). Thus, authenticity is redefined as personal, or phenomenological. It is concerned with a personal experience of an individual and their emotional reaction to surrounding spaces (Wells, 2010). This approach recognized the impossibility of capturing and sustaining all the values, and aims at emphasizing certain connections between buildings and users, while removing the others (Sully, 2015, p.15). The peoples-based approach suggests that the welfare of the users takes priority over the fabric that is conserved. The process involves collective development of conservation strategy with the active members of the public, as opposed to a mere collection of feedback on the solutions proposed by the experts. (Sully, 2015, p.15). Thus, peoples-based approach aims to not only connect communities with their heritage, as in the values-based model, but also empower them to take care of it and lead the decision-making process. The three major approaches to conservation are summarized in Table 1.

MATERIALS

VALUES

PEOPLES

Figure 2. Modern Approach Integrating Three Conservation Frameworks.

Overall, there has been a shift from globalization to localization of heritage conservation perspective. It reflected in change in focus from the retention of culture, in the physical end product, to its creation and recreation, putting local communities in the center of the conservation process. It is evident that todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s conservation approach is being redefined. The current relevance of the â&#x20AC;&#x153;careful management of changeâ&#x20AC;? implies that cultural sustainability is at the very core of the modern conservation practice. Despite the sequential development of the three conservation frameworks, the modern approach is not about rejecting the more traditional materials- and values-based models. Culturally sustainable conservation is becoming an all-encompassing complex paradigm of retention of historic fabric, reflection of cultural values, and enhancing personal experiences, balanced to achieve the continuing contribution of heritage to present and future generations.

CULTURAL ANALYSIS This Section will outline the two cultural contexts under the study: the Western culture, represented by Europe and Canada, and the Eastern culture, represented by Japan. Each culture will be discussed beginning with the analysis of their respective history of conservation practice, through the exploration of primary philosophical and aesthetic concepts, concluding with the overview of the dominant contemporary conservation approaches and the associated challenges.

• • •

How do such contrasting cultures treat their heritage today? How did they treat it throughout the history? How did their philosophical and aesthetic ideals form their perspective on heritage conservation?

THE WEST

THE WEST: HISTORIC OVERVIEW OF CONSERVATION PRACTICE

PRIOR TO THE 20TH CENTURY Jokilehto defines three distinct movements in the history of European conservation: “traditional approach”, “romantic restoration”, and “conservation movement” (1986, p.6). The “traditional approach” is the oldest movement, which existed from the very beginning of a society formation. Structures were only preserved if still actively used or there was no particular reason for demolishing them. Such approach was caused by the fact that changes to and development of the built environment was slow and could last generations, making people willing to “continue the efforts of previous generations in a harmonious way”. Buildings were not preserved for their cultural significance; rather, the purpose of conservation was linked to the memory of the builder. Historic fabric was also not a concern for that time, and the primary objective was to keep the building functioning, whether through renewal or renovation. The only exceptions were monuments carrying a special symbolic, or “memorial”, value, such as the Pyramids of Egypt, in which case material authenticity was preserved (ibid, p.6-7). The “romantic restoration” movement appeared in the Italian Renaissance. During that time, heritage was treated as a point of reference, and people tried to not just imitate ancient art or structural advancements, but also exceed the achievements of the past. Thus, monuments and artwork were carefully protected and sometimes restored and completed for them to serve as a model to society of the Renaissance era. Such treatment was also caused by the Church’s “desire to show its superiority over paganism”, through restoration of heritage related to Christian religion. Overall, a greater respect for history spread over Europe during that time. Nationalistic and romantic views inspired active restoration of monuments having historical value to a particular nation. Using historical research of styles, restoration practice aimed at completion and recreation of built heritage in its original state. The primary idea of restoration was not the functional continuity of a building anymore; it was trying to create a ‘book’ of “frozen illustrations” depicting the flashes of the national history (ibid, p.7). The “conservation movement” developed as a reaction to the romantic restoration practices and was aimed at avoidance of conjecture, which happened quite often in restoration due to incompleteness of historic evidence (Forster et al., 2017). Conservationists saw value in ‘layering of history’ and the original historic fabric; the form did not matter to them as much as materiality. Defined by Forster et al. as “conservative repair”, this movement promoted clear distinction between old and new fabric in order to avoid confusion and falsification (ibid, p.5). Therefore, it was an acceptable conservation practice for classical structures to be rebuilt with as much original fabric as possible (Jokilehto, 1986, p.7). The romantic restoration and conservation approaches were practiced in parallel for some time, which led to fierce conflicts as to how heritage should be treated. Later, in the 18th century, this anti-restoration

movement gained prevalence, and a new formulation of conservation theory strictly prohibited any reconstruction, and only modern forms of additions were accepted. By the end of the 19th century, most European countries were not unified in terms of their approach: some practiced “stylistic restoration”, some objected to this promoting “conservation movement”, and the rest tried to find a sort of compromise between the two (ibid).

THE 20TH CENTURY Everything changed with the coming of wars in the 20th century. In the process of recovery from their destructive consequences, no strict conservation could be practiced. All the forces went into reconstruction of historic buildings. Various international conferences were held relating to the restoration and conservation of architectural heritage. The resulting recommendations favoured conservation over restoration of historic monuments, despite the impossibility of following this approach strictly due to damages brought by the wars (ibid., p.399). After the WWII, European approaches to post-war recovery were not consistent due to various degree of damage to the architectural heritage. In such extreme context, principles established by previous charters could hardly be followed, and many countries decided to go beyond the limits of the conservation theory. Three distinct approaches at the time can be identified: reconstruction, justified by at least saving “the authentic remains of original edifices”, an opposing approach rejecting any reconstruction, or leaving the ruins of monuments untouched to serve as a “memorial” (ibid). It was clear that in order to promote cultural heritage protection and settle any disputes between the nations, new international organizations needed to be established. Thus, United Nations Organization, and the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) was formed in 1945, and the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) was founded at the meeting in Venice in 1964, the result of which is the document commonly known as the Venice Charter (ibid). The Venice Charter of 1964 is a seminal document that was, and still is, a common reference point for practitioners and governments. It emphasizes the perception of buildings as “historical evidence” as much as artwork and balances restoration and conservation, yet rejects any conjecture (Jokilehto, 1986, p.420422). The meeting in Venice involved representatives from all over the world; however, the resulted document was perceived as “European-biased” due to under representation of delegates from non-European countries. The problem with its active adoption by other cultures is that the Charter promotes the significance of tangible heritage over intangible ones, which manifests values, alien to the East and indigenous American cultures (ibid).

CANADIAN CONSERVATION HISTORY Since the beginning of Americas’ exploration by Europeans, their culture and history has been linked, with many artistic, architectural, and urban planning traditions brought to and adopted by the New World, including preservation practices (Stubbs & Makaš, 2011, p. xv). Therefore, Canadian preservation tradition is closely tied to that of European for obvious historic reasons. Until the creation of the Venice Charter in 1964, Canada and Europe shared their approaches to conservation. However, the Charter was only partially accepted by Americans due to evident “continental European bias” towards built heritage that did not consider the diversity of cultural heritage in other parts of the world, such as vernacular indigenous architecture in Americas or ancient wood temples in Asia. Since the Charter was issued, Canada and Europe started to diverge in their strategies for heritage protection (ibid).

THE WEST: CULTURAL BACKGROUND

DOMINANT AESTHETIC: PERMANENCE Generally, Western aesthetic ideals are rooted in classical Greek and Roman architecture, which strives for perfection and mathematical proportions (Forster et al., 2018, p.13). The so-called “pattern books” are commonly used when conserving traditional European architecture, which are essentially a set of ‘rules’ established by Vitruvius’ “Ten Books on Architecture”. These ‘rules’ are to be followed in order to achieve an ‘ideal’ building (ibid). Debate is still active as to whether striving for perfection through restoration helps preserve authenticity or on the contrary, gives opportunity for conjecture and deceit.

VALUE OF BUILDING FABRIC: “MATERIAL FETISH” Original materials carry a great significance in the Western culture. The fabric is believed to “see” and “remember” events from the past, as if it was a “living entity”. The witnessed events are imprinted on its surface forming the layers of history (Wells, 2010, p.3). Therefore, it is seen as critical to limit the interventions to the original fabric as much as possible because even “the copy could never have the same value (or authenticity) as the original because the copy did not bear witness to the events of the past” (ibid). In contrast with the striving for perfection of form and the aesthetics of permanence, appreciation of the imperfect can still be noticed in the Western culture. Specifically, John Ruskin valued patina on the surfaces and called it “golden stain of time”, which contributes to a building’s unique character (Forster et al., 2018, p.10).

DETERMINING CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE In the Western conservation approach, universally accepted objective or scientific method was used to define the cultural significance of historic places, buildings, and monuments: “Euro-American conservation doctrine grew from the belief that the valuation of historic buildings and places could be treated in a scientific, objective manner in which the accumulation of facts, independent of pluralistic interpretations, would universally be able to establish which places have historical value and which do not” (Wells, 2010, p.54). In Western culture, authenticity is defined as “materially original or genuine as it was constructed and as it has aged and weathered in time” (Rodwell, 2003, p.61). However, as an opposite approach in contemporary conservation dispute, “authentic” does not necessarily mean “original”. In Article 24 of the World Heritage Convention issued by UNESCO, the significance of all historic alterations is acknowledged as the authenticity “…does not limit consideration to original form and structure but includes all subsequent

modifications and additions over the course of time, which themselves possess artistic or historic valueâ&#x20AC;? (UNESCO, 1988). Nevertheless, since either original or any other historic fabric plays a key role in establishing cultural value, it can be concluded that the Western approach gears towards a traditional framework of conservation.

THE WEST: CURRENT CONSERVATION PRACTICE

DOMINANT APPROACHES AND THEIR ASSOCIATED CONSTRAINTS The following five approaches can belong to the materials-, values-, or peoples-based frameworks to various extents. They also do not represent an exhaustive list of approaches present in today’s conservation practice but include the most common strategies as described in literature and their constraints.

1. PRESERVATION: BUILDINGS AS MUSEUM ARTEFACTS

This approach represents a pessimistic view as it embraces and accepts the inevitable process of decay. It involves retention of the “as-found” state of the building for as long as possible, rather than looking to realize its original form. Rossi and Eisenman call preservation a “pathological” approach - the one that retards urban development in a city. They see it as a so-called “museifying” of a structure and detaching it from everyday life: “it gives only the appearance of being alive” (1982, p.6). The limitation of this approach lies in people’s natural desire to contribute to the flow of history, thus becoming a link between the past and the future. “An environment that cannot be changed invites its own destruction. We prefer a world that can be modified progressively, against a background of valued remains, a world in which one can leave a personal mark alongside the marks of history” (Lynch, 1972, p.36).

2. RESTORATION: ATTEMPT TO “ARREST THE PAST”

In literature, this approach is commonly defined as “alteration of a building… the objective of which is to make it conform again to its design or appearance at a previous date” (Forster et al., 2018, p.5). Restoration is supported by “idealistic aesthetic reasons”, which justify the more extensive interventions in the pursuit of the original state. Sometimes this idealistic vision can even result in a building taking on qualities that never existed in the past (Foster et al., 2018, p.5). It seeks to find permanence in the visual image of a building (ibid) and “arrest the past”, yet in practice, it is impossible to recreate the exact circumstances & context of that time (Lynch, 1972, p.35). The constraint of this approach is related to the treatment of the later additions to the original structure. Would they be considered insignificant and not worth preserving due to nonconformance to the “ideal” state of a building? (ibid) Another problem is that of “honesty”. According to Forster et al., “realization [of initial form and condition] would dilute the historic record and deceive” (2018, p.5).

3. REPAIR: DO AS MUCH AS NEEDED, YET AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE

Opposite to restoration, this approach embraces the idea of impermanence – acceptance of passage of time and taking a more honest, “do as much as necessary, yet as little as possible” position. “Respect for the contribution of all periods” is, therefore, crucial for retaining cultural significance: all historic periods contribute to a building in a certain valuable way, which becomes an integral part of a building (Forster et al., 2018, p.5). Alternative materials and construction techniques are used to make repairs legible avoiding conjecture, and yet new materials must be compatible with the old fabric, which means “all the physical material of the place” (Rodwell, 2013, p.61). And even if interventions are necessary, they should be minimized and clearly distinguishable in the future. This contributes to the idea of impermanence by exposing the contrast between the aging and the modern (Forster et al., 2018, p.5). The challenge associated with approach is the balance between preserving the integrity (the amount of unaltered fabric in a building defining its “wholeness”) of a structure and ensuring ‘readability’ of interventions. This inevitably poses a question active in today’s conservation debate: to what degree should they be legible and to whom - everyone or conservation experts? (ibid) 4. REHABILITATION: CONSERVATION THROUGH DEVELOPMENT

Rehabilitation (also called adaptive reuse) is concerned with maximizing the use of heritage buildings to keep them “alive”; this implies acceptance of some intervention to adapt buildings to new conditions and/or uses: “The majority of the historic environment is in everyday use, and this means accepting that a consequence of continued use is continued change. Continued use of the historic environment might mean putting buildings to new uses…” (Fairclough, 2001, p.24). “Propelling” heritage, meaning the one accelerating urban development, “serve[s] to bring the past into the present, providing a past that can still be experienced” (Rossi & Eisenman, 1982, p.6). According to Rossi, such buildings are able to survive solely due to their resilience and ability to adapt to different functions with the original form (ibid). As a conservation approach rehabilitation carries two problems: 1. How to balance loss of integrity with the needs of today’s society? 2. How to ensure that the interventions will not significantly reduce our successors’ ability to benefit from their inheritance. “This means leaving them enough of the historic environment, either unchanged or with reversible changes, to make their own choices” (ibid).

5. FACADISM: “THEATRICAL CURTAIN”

Facadism is common in development-driven societies as it involves conservation of a historic shell (“outsides”) while core (“insides”) is adapted to an active use, “hiding” behind a historic facade. This creates

a contrast between interior and exterior: “outsides” are public, historic, and regulated, while “insides” are private, fluid, and free” (Lynch, 1972, p.36). This approach raises challenging concerns: To what extent modifications may take place? How disruptive is modernization to the historic integrity of a place? (ibid). Rodwell openly criticizes such approach for its ‘shallowness’ and the “lack of ambition” in incorporating sustainability intro architectural conservation agenda. He believes today’s conservation professionals focus on the aesthetic look of a building and pay little attention to the values it conveys: “‘Character’ and ‘appearance’ have reduced much of the role of the conservation officer and urban designer to that of a theatrical set designer, concerned with morphology and architectural detail when viewed from certain public vantage points, skin-deep, and unrelated to the functions of buildings, to the intangible cultural heritage, and to the human traditions of any given place.” (2003, p.62)

CHALLENGES OF CONTEMPORARY CONSERVATION PRACTICE Modern preservation practice is facing various challenges associated with technology, globalization, and the extent of heritage modernization, as outlined by several authors. Some of the most significant themes include: 

Issue of Inclusiveness: migration caused by rapid globalization changes the integrity of local communities and their shared values and histories, which makes it challenging for ethnic heritage and identity to relate to everyone in a particular community (Soini & Birkeland, 2013, p.216).



Modern technology: while striving for innovation, the use of modern techniques and materials in preservation can lead to destruction of historical layers (ibid).



Old-to-New Fabric Relationship: multiple authors acknowledge the significance of this issue in the modern conservation practice (Soini & Birkeland, 2013; Wells, 2010; Rodwell, 2003), as it affects both the visual aesthetic of a building, and its historic integrity. This issue is actively discussed nowadays. Wells summarizes common recommendations and guidelines for distinguishing old and new fabric (Appendix A).

CONSERVATION IN CANADA The following section will shed light on the current state of conservation practice in Canada. Based on material gathered from three conversations with architects having a variety of experience, these essays will present the challenges and opportunities of Canadian preservation, as well as examples of projects that considered retention of culture.

Figure 3. Renovated Rotunda of Historic Don Jail. From KPMB Architects (n.d.).

“Raising Public Awareness” Melissa Stickl Stewart is an architect at Valley River Architects, and a former architect at VG architects, with experience in conservation projects across Ontario. Example Project: Old Don Jail (Toronto, ON) The Old Don Jail project involved adaptive reuse of a jail building into offices with partial retention of the historic attributes, such as exterior stonework, the gallows, a row of jail cells, and inmate paintings. History was important to retain but the challenge was in its negative connotation. Therefore, the spaces preserved were not in the main circulation routes, so that occupants do not have to pass them on a daily basis. They can still be accessed, however, on the lower level of the building. The new fabric is clearly distinguishable from the old. The intention was to keep the old and the new separate. For example, the existing door openings were too narrow to comply with the current building code; therefore, they were altered, indicating the change with metal surrounding the openings.

Challenges and Opportunities of Canadian Conservation Practice 1. First, there is an issue of perceived cost of conserving versus putting a new-built. Usually, with the conservation projects material costs are lower, since a lot of the existing fabric can be reused, while the labour costs are higher due to highly specialized knowledge and skills needed for such projects. 2. Second, conservation projects involve higher risks due to the probability of something unexpected happening. “The fear of the unknown” is what makes owners more reluctant to pursue conservation in construction projects, as they require greater will and patience than new developments. 3. And finally, the third challenge is lack of skilled trades familiar with conservation work. This, however, is already being improved as more and more institutions start to offer appropriate training. Government organizations, such as Heritage Canada, should actively spread the message about the importance of conservation projects on various levels. Increasing the awareness of general public and the clients will help eliminate some of the fears associated with conservation. Another way to help this is for conservation professionals to cooperate with clients more closely to build trust and raise their awareness. “Having studied in Scotland and Switzerland, I can say that Europe is definitely more inclined to reuse their buildings. They tend to see a greater value in their historic buildings. For Canada, this practice is still not as wide-spread” (M. S. Stewart, personal communication [interview], Mach 22, 2019).

“Dichotomy Between Conservation and New Development” Laird Robertson is an architect and creative director of NEO Architecture – a small-scale design firm in Kitchener, ON. Having a rich experience of over 25 years, he had worked on a few conservation projects in Ontario, primarily for private developers.

Canadian preservation is mainly characterized as development-driven, focusing on the profit rather than on societal benefit of heritage conservation. This is due to various reasons, among which are lack of appreciation for cultural heritage in the general public, materialistic values prevailing in society, and developers’ pressure on conservation authorities. Each development project has to go through a difficult process to get approval. This is due to the fact that Canadian culture is young (not considering Aboriginal culture) and has fewer historic buildings, compared to Europe or Japan, which leads to local governments defending every piece of heritage being affected by a new development. This was caused by the loss of a few significant heritage buildings in the past due to mere negligence, for example, the old city hall in Kitchener, Ontario. Since then, all buildings have been protected with no consideration for what to preserve and when to preserve them. Everything over 100 years old is considered as historic and valuable; however, appreciation of heritage is only existent on a governmental level. Canadian society at large is not yet culturally mature to appreciate the value of the old, historic architecture. The split between the governments and the general public leads into another issue: authorities are trying to please everyone by finding a “balance that makes everyone equally unhappy”, by compromising and negatively impacting both new developments and heritage buildings. An example is a historic streetscape on Queen Street, downtown Kitchener. The street was inhabited by wealthy citizens who left behind their magnificent houses. Not being able to withstand developmental pressure, local authorities agreed to partially give up the properties to densify the city’s core. The problem is that by doing so they defeated the whole purpose of preserving the Queen streetscape, even though fiercely protecting a few buildings. A search for democratic compromise is a clear representation of Canadian culture – being polite and respectful to everyone’s needs; this approach however is detrimental when applied to heritage preservation context. A firm decision, formed through a detailed case-by-case analysis could potentially solve the issue. Another challenge is related to financing the projects involving preservation. Financial feasibility of every project is one of the top priorities, and best practices are often not followed due to associated budgeting issues. No investment would be made into a project unless there is an absolute certainty it will be profitable – this priority, unfortunately, governs a vast majority of preservation projects in Canada. Consequently, facadism became a common strategy in preservation practice, since the interiors of the building can be cleared out to give a way to a new use. What is left of the original structure is just a wrapper, a “theatrical

curtainâ&#x20AC;? that gives the illusion of respect for the old. And even that â&#x20AC;&#x153;curtainâ&#x20AC;? would have been torn down but for the strict heritage regulation. To summarize, dichotomy is present in Canadian conservation practice on multiple layers: between conservation and development, authorities and social values, and respect for heritage and financial profit.

Figure 4. Original Train Station: View from the Rideau Canal. From ERA Architects (2019).

Figure 5. The New East Faรงade. From Canadian Architect (2019).

“Maturing to the Values-Based Approach” Jan Kubanek is a conservation architect and associate at ERA Architects based in Montreal, QC. With over 15 years of experience, he specializes in public sector projects for the Canadian government, public agencies and institutions.

When people started feeling strongly about saving places, starting with conserving rich houses in 1960’s1970’s, the Canadian approach was heavily reliant on fabric-centered view of heritage value. However, in the past 20-30 years, these has been maturing of the conservation field in theory and practice: “In our entire philosophy, we’ve moved beyond the material-based [a.k.a. fabric-centered] approach to conservation, that of saving the bricks and stones, towards of what we call values-based conservation”, which is aimed at retention of values associated with the place. As a result, the values-centered approach is now firmly imbedded in the charters and the standards for conservation, such as Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. In Canada, restoration as a conservation approach is not very common because going back to an earlier state of the building makes it challenging to meet the current codes. Therefore, adaptive reuse is the most common type of projects. It involves not only the change of function to suit the modern needs, but also bringing the building up to the current codes and accessibility standards so that it can be used today. *Note: rehabilitation is often used interchangeably but does not necessarily entail change of use.

Example Project: Government Conference Centre (GCC) / Senate of Canada (Ottawa, ON) The project, which has just been completed in early 2019, involved adaptive reuse of a former train station, a historic landmark built in 1912 in Ottawa. The original building was meant to and elevate and dignify the passenger railway and impress the city with its wealth and grandeur of spaces. The main goal of the project was to understand the drivers that led to the original design to be able to retain that user experience and spatial qualities of the original building. The revelation of the original design intent was achieved through • • •

Reestablishing the original sequence of spaces (“the interior procession”) Bringing back natural light neglected by previous modifications Letting the visitors experience the original material palette

The challenge was to accommodate the required program and bring the building up to the seismic codes and life safety and accessibility standards while preserving the historic integrity of the building.

Figure 6. General Waiting Room in 1912. From ERA Architects (2019).

Figure 7. Renovated General Waiting Room. From Canadian Architect (2019).

The most important principle of combining old and new in GCC building is compatibility. The new must not only be subordinate to the original, but also harmonious in shape, form, and material. In GCC project, for example, the original materiality consisted primarily of marble, bronze-like material, and imitation travertine, as well as some woodwork in the more private areas of the building. The new material palette is based on the original palette but expressed in a contemporary way that was clearly distinguishable (Figure 6-7).

Challenges and Opportunities of Canadian Conservation Practice 1.

Desire for the New:

Canadian society, and American in general, has desire for the new, clean, and comfortable interior spaces. As much as they are attached to their historic buildings and expresses a great concern every time they are under the threat of demolition, they would still prefer “new plaster walls and clean straight floors”. Thus, façade retention while gutting the interiors to suit the modern requirements is a common solution in Canada. Nevertheless, it can still be done in a way that would recognize the heritage value of the original building, according to Jan Kubanek. 2.

Conservation for the privileged and the material value:

The view of what has value is still too narrow – it is restricted by the old perception of the fabric as the primary carrier of historic value. The contemporary, values-centered approach is challenging this paradigm, yet Canada is still maturing to adopt it widely. Today, there are opportunities for opening up and democratizing conservation, accepting the diversity of narratives and interpretations of what has value in a historic building. 3.

The discovery of the hidden value:

Value is hidden due to lack of information on some of the historic buildings. This, however, can also be considered as an opportunity to learn and research the hidden narratives and stories behind these structures. 4.

Funding and governmental support:

Places that have heritage value do not have the means to maintain them. Lack of financial support on a governmental level. The United States is much stronger than Canada in this case with their system of tax incentives and grands for heritage places that are nationally recognized. Nevertheless, there exists a great amount of evidence that the investment in heritage brings positive outcomes that end up generating income for the economy and for the government. It brings not only a financial but also social payback in terms of community development, especially in the economically depressed areas. This is both a challenge and an opportunity for Canada to be more proactive and forward-

Figure 8. Concourse in 1912. From ERA Architects (2019).

Figure 9. The Senate Chamber in 2019. From ERA Architects (2019).

looking in terms of providing funding for national historic sites or other sites that have heritage value in a broad sense of a word. 5.

Conservation and sustainability:

Heritage conservation is a part of a larger effort of achieving sustainability as it goes beyond financial or environmental implication. It is now imbedded in UNESCO sustainability policies recognizing that the most sustainable building is the building that already exists. In what way? A building that exists for a long time becomes a part of our culture, our identity, and the way people engage with the city, creating unique experiences and forming a sense of place. Thus, heritage conservation achieves sustainability on a deeper level that cannot be quantified in terms of LEED or other certifications. It is, however, challenging to convince the clients of this idea. “As a conservation architect,” Jan admits, “I see it as my challenge to inspire clients to see the heritage value of a building and work toward solutions that recognize this value.” 6.

Codes and Historic Structures:

In the modern democratic society, universal accessibility is one of the many requirements, which have to be met. As Jan noted, “we want people to be able to enter into buildings with the same amount of dignity”. Due to the great impact on the buildings’ integrity of such interventions as putting in elevators or new stairs, it becomes very difficult to meet the current building and fire codes and accessibility requirements in the historic environments. The modern codes and standards are based on new construction and are lacking considerations for historic assemblies, which makes engineers uncomfortable working with existing old buildings. There are very few consultants with experience in conservation who can confidently quantify the structural performance and qualities of historic structures. Therefore, façade retention is often a common solution. Overall, Canadian conservation is slowly moving towards recognizing a wider interpretation of what carries value. Legislation and governmental support are still yet to develop accordingly to accommodate successful implementation of culturally sustainable conservation projects. Lastly, competing objectives of project stakeholders make it difficult to find the right balance between financial profit and non-material benefits of conservation; the architects’ task, therefore, is to inspire the clients and teams to see the real value and broader potential of heritage conservation.

THE EAST 49

THE EAST: HISTORIC OVERVIEW OF CONSERVATION PRACTICE

PRE-MEIJI PERIOD (7TH CENTURY – 1868) 90% of Japanese traditional architecture is built with wood. This fact governed the principles of heritage preservation through a special practice of “maintenance through repair”, or periodic reconstruction. Since the 7th century, when the oldest wooden structure was built and is still standing today, the tradition of periodic reconstruction continued across Japan. It involved dismantling, repair of pieces, and reassembling of structures. Where in Europe, this would be considered extremely invasive, Japanese followed their tradition for a few practical reasons: • • •

it allowed for replacement of damaged structural members; it created opportunity for modification; it allowed for possible expansion to meet higher occupancy or change in ownership (Stubbs & Thomson, 2017, p.42).

Larsen adds that not only it was practical to preserve buildings in that way, but the process was also perceived as a reflection of the natural cycle of life: birth, decay, and death. In Shinto religion, which is Japan’s indigenous religion (Ikegaya, 2013), it was required for a Shinto building to have a fresh and neat look. Considering Japan’s humid climate causing wood to deteriorate at a faster rate, the only reasonable way to maintain such freshness was to reconstruct a building completely (Larsen, 1994, p.14). This ideal of cleanliness contradicts another aspect of Japanese culture – their appreciation for patina, or sabi, on a material object. Thus, wabi-sabi described previously is still an important consideration when preserving the past (Stubbs & Thomson, 2017, p.45). Along with the traditional method of conservation, Japanese also practiced a more simplistic approach of preserving buildings for as long as they last, which is similar to the “traditional approach” in Europe (ibid).

MEIJI PERIOD (1868-1912) The year 1868 marked the end to several centuries of isolation in Japan. It is considered the beginning of “modern Japan” as emperor Meiji “opened Japan to the outside world” encouraging extensive Westernization and modernization. This is the time when first stone and brick European-style buildings disrupted the traditional Japanese urban landscape, and even replaced some of the wooden buildings. In this way, the government tried to adopt international standards and construction technologies in order to show their “cultural progress” to the West. Thus, Japanese traditions were often rejected in favour of progress and new development (Ikegaya, 2013).

What differentiated traditional Shinto and Meiji architecture is also the connection to surroundings: Shinto shrines were not simply shelters – they encouraged a more intimate connection with natural environment and people due to openness of the plan, thus serving as “a local community center”. Meiji period brought buildings that were designed to only protect (ibid). Another important impact on built heritage was caused by the separation of Shinto and Buddhism, which co-existed peacefully prior to Meiji. The government aimed at destructing Buddhist religion, and every cultural heritage associated with it, and establish a pure Shinto for all of Japan to unify the nation. This led to a loss of significant portion of religious architecture (ibid). The architecture of Meiji period is considered not old enough to be conserved. Some argue that in Japanese view, buildings are named “historic” only when they reach 400 years. Contemporary Japanese government places higher value on pre-modern architecture, not so much Meiji heritage. Anything built during and after Meiji period is considered to be a “modern Japanese history” and not part of national cultural heritage (ibid, p.116).

POST-WWII (2ND HALF OF THE 20TH CENTURY) The westernization of Japan continued in this period. Chasing after “modern” West in the post-war period led to conflict between heritage and rapid and forceful development and industrialization. A lot of heritage was lost during rebuilding of Japanese cities from widespread destruction brought by WWII. What had to stay was determined by buildings’ cultural status, their contribution to celebrating national identity, and how “charismatic” they were (Stubbs & Thomson, 2017, p.12). Development pressure was only growing as government promoted foreign developers to bring their projects, along with their values and vision for preservation, which conflicted with local interests. This resulted in powerful and aggressive imposition of international approaches. Due to globalization and the involvement in Japanese preservation of international organizations such as ICOMOS and UNESCO, the Western approach to conservation had a strong influence on Japanese preservation practice (ibid). Nevertheless, the Venice Charter of 1964 could not be adopted to the Japanese context. Wooden vernacular architecture cannot be treated in the same manner as stone and brick architecture due to physical limitations of the material. Japanese wooden buildings are more fragile and require careful maintenance, periodic repairs, and often even replacement of some members, which contradicts the Western notion of “material authenticity”. In addition to this, the continuity of Japanese tradition of reconstruction set the country aside of the global “monuments-centric” movement (ibid, p.42).

THE EAST: CULTURAL BACKGROUND AESTHETIC OF IMPERMANENCE Japanese conservation is heavily defined by the following key aesthetic concepts: Kiku and Kiwari, Kintsugi, and Wabi Sabi. All interventions are evaluated against these three cultural frameworks (Forster et al., 2018, p.14). They embody both visual quality of objects and the way “artefacts should reflect cultural ideologies”. Japanese culture is rooted in valuing impermanence, the passing of time, and repair as valuable and beautiful aspect of life (ibid).

KIKU AND KIWARI: THE ART OF REPRODUCTION Kiku and Kiwari inform the methods of reproduction of wooden components used to replace parts of a structure. Kiwari is the Japanese system of modular proportions, and Kiku is “a design technique for the eaves and the placement of the rafters” (Larsen, 1994, p. 107). Since the wooden members used in traditional Japanese buildings are prefabricated and standardized according to the principles of Kiku and Kiwari, it enables carpenters to precisely reconstruct the components (ibid) (Figures 10-11).

KINTSUGI (GOLDEN JOINERY): LEGIBILITY OF REPAIR Originated from ceramic conservation, where cracks and breakage are considered “integral to the object rather than something to disguise”. They celebrate the traces on artefacts left by aging, as they “tell a story”. For Japanese, “a ‘good’ piece should be functional and at the same time all the marks are kept” (Forster et al., 2018, p.13). This method of repair is applied to objects and buildings. Kintsugi makes repair legible and very actively so: “Kintsugi has an extremely high level of authenticity in its clear celebration that the original cannot be retained.” (Forster et al., 2018, p.14) (Figure 12).

WABI SABI: VALUE OF AGED SURFACES Just like Kintsugi, wabi-sabi aesthetics appreciates the passage of time and its effect on the building fabric. It celebrates “impermanence, humility, asymmetry, and imperfection” (Forster et al., 2018, p.14). The way change affects the objects leaving the traces of use, breakage, and decay is considered as beautiful, since it follows the cycles of growth and decay in nature (Figure 13).

Figure 10. Kiwari Method. From Larsen (1994).

Figure 11. Kiku Drawing. From Larsen (1994).

Figure 12. Kintsugi Ceramics. From Monoarte-It (2018).

Figure 13. Wabi Sabi Interior. From Vervoordt (2010).

SPIRITUAL MOTIVES “What differentiates Asia is the additional motive of traditionalism, which involves adherence to ancient doctrines, manuals or practices, especially pertaining to religion...” (Stubbs & Thomson, 2017, p.4). However, similarly to European concept of building fabric as a “living entity”, Asian societies treat heritage as a “living thing”, just like another person. At the same time, appreciation of the building’s physical material in the West is different from valuing the building as a whole, thinking of it as having a spirit, as in the East (ibid). Therefore, the issue of conservation in Japan becomes more complex “since living heritage, through continuity of lifeways including simple practical responses, is in contrast to the expert-derived notions of heritage” (Stubbs & Thomson, 2017, p.5), which are still common in Europe and Canada.

THE EAST: CURRENT CONSERVATION Japanese legislation for heritage preservation dates back at least to mid-19th century. Currently, Japanese government have been updating their laws in the past few decades. This has led to adoption of Nara Document on Authenticity in 1994 – a major achievement in Asian conservation practice, which established and codified a first non-European approach to heritage conservation. The document emphasizes the need to acknowledge diversity of conservation approaches in different cultures, and that “cultural values by which resources are evaluated should not be fixed, but rather specific to their context.” (Stubbs & Thomson, 2017, p.25). Nara Document is a courageous response to outright imposition of Western cultural ideals on Eastern heritage preservation, as well as a manifesto toward a more holistic view of cultural heritage preservation in a culturally-diverse world. Despite active international involvement in Asian heritage conservation in the 2nd half of the 20th century, Stubbs concludes: “As the Asian heritage conservation field matures, and due perhaps to the global recession of the first decade of the twenty-first century, there appears to be a trend for international agencies to gradually pull back as local, national and regional initiatives take over” (ibid, p.24).

DOMINANT APPROACHES AND THEIR ASSOCIATED CONSTRAINTS Japan is apparently going through rapid and intensive changes, which makes it challenging to precisely describe their conservation practice techniques and approaches. In addition to their fluid and diverse contexts, and despite major modernization, their “continuity of spiritual practices” and traditional aesthetic frameworks are still highly influential. They are ‘imbedded’ in the structures and are known only to those using those buildings. However insignificant some buildings may seem to the “outsiders”, the “insiders” will know the depth of meanings, or “layered significances” and values tied to their historic buildings (Stubbs & Thomson, 2017, p.3). Conservation in Japan is predominantly peoples-based, as opposed to materials-based in the Western culture. It is considered harmonious when having a multi-layered relationship to society - on a level of a single person, family, community, nation, and even on an international level (ibid, p.4).

1. RECONSTRUCTION: KIKU AND KIWARI

This conservation technique is part of Japanese regular maintenance as major and minor repairs are deemed natural, given the climate conditions. Reconstruction of the whole structure is not usual as it is still important to keep as much original fabric as possible (Forster et al., 2018, p.14). In addition to the causes for reconstruction identified earlier, another important meaning of such approach is to aid community cohesion and inspire the sense of identity. In that way, Japanese focus not on simply

conserving the fabric but culturally enrich the neighbourhoods and retain traditional craft skills. What is valued is the process; authenticity in Japanese culture is therefore represented by the “authenticity of process” and the intangible aspects associated with it (Forster et al., 2018, p. 14). “The Japanese recognize that traditional techniques are necessary in order to [con]serve the historic structures, and conversely, traditional techniques are being [con]served through actual preservation work. The mutually-dependent relationship between the [con]servation of buildings and the [con]servation of traditional techniques is the central tenet of contemporary architectural [con]servation philosophy in Japan” (Larsen, 1994, p. 82).

2. RESTORATION: UNITY OF STYLE

Along with the traditional Japanese conservation approaches, restoration is widely practiced. Since the Meiji period in Japanese history, the original state of historic buildings was seen as the most significant and the most valuable in their development. Nowadays, as long as the accurate and full documentation is available, the buildings would be restored to the original state. The origins of this doctrine are unclear; however, it is quite possible that it gained prevalence due to European influence during and after the Meiji period, a socalled “stylistic restoration” which strived for the unity of style and “recreation of the architectural whole” (Larsen, 1994, p. 101). What about the value of patina of time in the Japanese culture? Since they also valued the weathered surfaces, why would they reject the approach of conserving the existing state of historic buildings? The likely answer is due to the nature of wood as a building material – the decayed wood simply cannot be beautiful. To the Japanese, the whole notion of “beautiful ruin”, romanticized by nineteenth-century Europeans, seemed absurd, since rotten wood is neither functional, nor beautiful. Therefore, repairs and replacements are inevitable in Japanese conservation (Larsen, 1994, p. 103). While the restoration approach was adapted in Japanese culture of conservation, current European doctrines, even though allowing restoration in certain applications, generally condemn stylistic recreation as the primary intent of this approach. According to the Venice Charter, “…the valid contributions of all periods to the building of a monument must be respected, since the unity of style is not the aim of restoration” (Larsen & Marstein, 2000, p.13). It can be concluded that while the Japanese value authenticity of process and purity of form of their historic buildings in the original state, Western culture tends to recognize the significance of the as-found state, which is valued as authentic, even though not necessarily original in terms of form or fabric.

CHALLENGES OF CONTEMPORARY CONSERVATION PRACTICE One of the most significant challenges in Japanese preservation, and Asian as a whole, is the influence of globalization. Stubbs and Thomson describe the international influence as disruptive to past-to-present continuity of traditional preservation techniques: “As much as Asian heritage is rooted in its own traditions, it is currently also under the influence of globalization, particularly through institutions like UNESCO, the World Heritage and the Intangible Cultural Heritage listing process, through economic consequences such as tourism and urban migration, as well as conflicts arising from national and international geo-political scenarios” (Stubbs & Thomson, 2017, p.13). The ever-present issue related to natural environment is only becoming stronger with the climate change. Natural disasters and global warming affect the primary building material of the majority of Japanese historic buildings, wood, and its performance more than ever before (ibid). Finally, one of the most burning issues in today’s conservation is the shortage of craftsmen and traditional materials, since little attention is given to authentic craft and techniques. This is primarily caused by rapid economic progress and industrialization in Japan. To revive and sustain the traditional conservation techniques, the governments in Kyoto and Nara Prefectures hire teams of craftsmen as government workers to protect their status, thus encouraging passing of their craft to the next generations (Yamato, 2011).

CASE STUDIES The following Section will explore three conservation projects chosen from Canada, Germany, and Japan. These three cases each serve as public buildings, both before and after conservation. The case study analysis will follow the same framework and consist of the following categories: • • • • •

Fundamental Conservation Interventions Structure Enclosure Inhabitation and Use Movement

Strategy

and

Nature

After the cases are discussed, the degree to which they achieved cultural sustainability will be identified. The ultimate objective of these case studies is to illustrate how the approaches to conservation discussed previously are applied in different contexts and in what manner they can contribute to an understanding of alternatives8 for culturally sustainable conservation. The cases presented do not serve as representatives of the countries’ approaches to conservation projects, and no generalization shall be made based on these projects.

Figure 14. 3-D Concept Diagram.

Figure 15. Site Concept Diagram. From RDH Architects (2014).

“Reestablishing Connection to the River”

Figure 16. Old Post Office in Galt, Cambridge, ON. North-West Rendering. From RDH Architects (2014).

1: CANADA â&#x20AC;&#x201C; OLD POST OFFICE Location: Galt, Cambridge, ON Originally Built: 1884 - 1887 Renovations Completed: 2018

Figure 17. Original Post Office Building. From Library and Archives Canada Blog (2018).

Figure 19. Cantilevered New Addition. From RDH Architects (2014).

Figure 18. Old Post Office in 2012. From Hurst (2012).

PROJECT BACKGROUND The original Old Post Office was constructed between 1884 and 1887 and is a landmark, cultural significance of which was determined based on the following: ď&#x201A;§

Historical value: it was designed by Thomas Muller, Dominion architect, who also worked on the Parliamentary Library in Ottawa; supporting the vision of federal government to establish its presence and reinforcing cultural identity across Canada (Stevens Burgess Architects Ltd., 2015, p.6).

ď&#x201A;§

Architectural value: the granite and limestone building is characterized by eclectic fusion of Italian and French styles, featuring the most sophisticated and detailed stonework exterior in the city (ibid).

In addition, it is worth mentioning that at the end of the XIX century, post offices carried as much significance for communities as city halls (L. Robertson, personal communication [interview], Mach 8, 2019). Prior to 2012, the building was privately owned and kept in a poor condition. It stood vacant and was heavily vandalized until purchased by the City of Cambridge in 2012 (Stevens Burgess Architects Ltd., 2015, p.4). Exterior fabric was damaged due to neglectful treatment of prior interventions: exposed ductwork, exterior fire exit from the roof; structurally unsound addition was constructed on the western side, hanging over the Grand River; and for access to that addition ground floor windows were altered without respecting original stone detailing, wood trimming, and artistic craft of glass in the windows (ibid). Interior fabric was in poor condition; however, enough of original material was present to use as a guide for fabric restoration and replication (ibid).

FUNDAMENTAL CONSERVATION STRATEGY AND NATURE OF INTERVENTIONS The primary project goal was to double the area for the new library, community space and a restaurant while preserving the historic building. As informed by the intention of intervention, the project involves new design, adaptive reuse, renovation, and restoration. Later additions to the original structure that were considered of destructive nature were removed to expand the area and accommodate for clear observation of the historically significant building from all sides. Thus, the poorly constructed earlier addition and infill structures to the west and south of the building, exposed ductwork, and roof fire escape were carefully detached (Stevens Burgess Architects Ltd., 2015).

Figure 20. Site Plan Before Renovations. From RDH Architects (2014).

Figure 21. Site Plan Showing the Orientation of the Cantilevered Addition. From RDH Architects (2014).

Figure 22. View of the Atrium. From RDH Architects (2014).

65.

Figure 23. Contrast of the Old and the New. Photograph by Author.

Depending on their physical condition, historic feature elements, such as plaster walls and cornices and woodwork in the Tower Stair and the Reading Room, were preserved as much as possible, with restoration and replication applied selectively (ibid). In addition, the city’s intention to reinforce the connection to the Grand River influenced the massing of the new addition that promotes views to the river and the original building. Thus, the addition acts as an “observational capsule” for visitors (Figure 19). As the Heritage Impact Assessment document states, in the perfect scenario, original function, building form, and heritage attributes would have been maintained, but in order to make the project financially viable, insertions were necessary to accommodate expansion (ibid, p. iii). The site presented constraints for the new addition: located in a dense downtown area, the building site is enclosed by the buildings to the north and south, by the street to the east, and the Grand River to the west (Figure 20). This condition forced the architects to create a volume sitting beside the original building, yet not exceeding it in height. The new is clearly in contrast to the old, distancing itself from the past and stating its distinctive style clearly and with confidence. This is reinforced by the bridges connecting the original building to the new cantilevered structure (Figures 21-22). The concepts of bookless library, digital technologies, and contemporary spaces dictated that the interiors are minimalistic and not reminiscent of the memories, traditions, and values associated with the building’s history. Nevertheless, the approach gives credit to the original building by reinforcing its observation, rather than feeling and emotional attachment.

STRUCTURE The original structure was not significantly modified even though the function was changing over the life of the building. Based on the comparison of the renovated to the original structure, it is clear that only a few interior partitions and some foundation walls in the basement were not retained (Figure 24). The new addition over the river and the underground expansion below the addition allows to maximize the building area even further. The cantilevered massing was slightly rotated to reinforce the view to the bridge located to the north-west of the building (Figure 21).

Figure 24. Floor Plans Showing Original, Retained, and New Structure. Created with data from ERA Architects (2014).

Figure 25. East-West Section Diagram: Enclosure Gradation. Created with data from ERA Architects (2014).

ENCLOSURE The addition is contrasting the existing building by presenting itself as a light and transparent element, compared to the heavy stone masonry of the old post office (Figure 16). The addition on the river side also created a new kind of experience by introducing gradation between the enclosed heavy building and an open exterior. This gradation is presented by a semi-enclosed transparent space, providing a feeling of protection while accommodating observation of the river view and the old building from “beside” perspective, rather than strictly inside or outside (Figure 25). Glazing was used to intentionally “break the symmetry” in the façades of the existing building. While the street side of the original structure was left untouched, the river side was modified extensively. Yet due to material transparency, the addition does not prevent the user from observing the old building.

INHABITATION AND USE The functions changed over time from the original post office, through various offices, to examining warehouse. The historic changes in use marginally affected the building’s exterior, however, the interior layout was modified. No documentation is available on the space utilization in the intermittent stages, between the original post office and current library and restaurant functions; therefore, they are omitted for the purpose of this analysis. The diagrams illustrate the change in the function of spaces from the original structure to the most recent adaptive reuse (Figure 26).

MOVEMENT The historic Tower Stair was preserved, including the original woodwork. Additional vertical circulation was introduced due to increase in occupant load and accessibility and modern code requirements. It is clear that few movement patterns were brought from the original to the new design. All the partitions inside the original building were removed, allowing for a free-flowing movement throughout the spaces. The addition offers a new user experience – that of transitioning between the old and the new through the bridges on the ground floor and a glazed link on the levels above (Figure 27). Finally, the new design includes an accessible outdoor area on the second floor, serving as an observation platform with the views to the historic building and the Grand River.

ORIGINAL FLOOR PLANS

NEW FLOOR PLANS

Figure 26. Inhabitation and Use of Original vs New Design. Created with data from ERA Architects (2014).

Figure 27. Circulation Floor Plans. Created with data from ERA Architects (2014).

Figure 28. Concept Diagram. From David Chipperfield Architects (n.d.).

“Reestablishment of Form and Figure”

Figure 29. Front Facade. From David Chipperfield Architects (n.d.) .

2: GERMANY â&#x20AC;&#x201C; THE NEUES MUSEUM Location: Museum Island, Berlin Originally Built: 1859 Renovations Completed: 2009

Figure 30. The Neues Museum after Bombing. From CortĂŠs (2010).

Figure 31. The South-East Wing After Reconstruction. From Bollack (2013).

Figure 32. Exterior Arcade After Reconstruction. From Bollack (2013).

PROJECT BACKGROUND The original Neues Museum (“the new museum”) was designed by the architect Friedrich August Stüler and built between 1841 and 1859 on Berlin’s Museum Island. During the World War II extensive bombing severely damaged the building, with some sections ruined completely (Figure 30). After the war, multiple attempts were taken to reconstruct the building, but due to various technical, cultural, and political reasons it was never completed, unlike other monumental buildings. The ruins stood exposed to nature and decay for 50 years, until finally restored by David Chipperfield Architects in collaboration with a conservation architect Julian Harrap (David Chipperfield Architects, n.d.). The project took over eleven years to complete (1998-2009) due to its complexity and controversial preservation approach raising public concern. Yet since the opening in 2009, it has been admired for its bold and extraordinary design, and even named "one of the most important museum buildings in European cultural history" (Design Within Reach, n.d.).

FUNDAMENTAL CONSERVATION STRATEGY AND NATURE OF INTERVENTIONS The Neues Museum was found in an extremely poor condition, severely affected by the war and weather: the northwest and most of the southeast wings, the Egyptian courtyard, the central pavilion, including the staircase, and the apse in the Greek courtyard were destroyed (Bollack, 2013, p.214). The architect’s approach was to “recomplete the original volume” (David Chipperfield Architects, n.d.) by restoring and “rebuild[ing] it from the ruin and give witness and evidence to what had happened to the building”, without copying of what was there in the first place (TEDx, 2011). In the interview for the Architects Journal, Chipperfield described his approach to Neues Museum: “Our approach was motivated by our desire to protect and repair the remains, to create a comprehensible setting and to reconnect the parts back into an architectural whole. The new and the old reinforce each other; not in a desire for contrast, but in a search for continuity. We have created a new building from the remains of the old, not celebrating or hiding its history, but including it” (Rattenbury, 2010). Such complex approach involved a combination of conservation, repair, restoration, reconstruction, and new construction, which makes it truly unique. A careful balance of all these techniques was quite controversial at the time, when most architects tried to contrast the original, underlining their distinct style. The common approaches

Figure 33. Approach Differs from Room to Room Depending on the Condition. From CortĂŠs (2010).

could have been taken: precise reconstruction of the historic building, “to visually simulate its original glory”; preservation of the ruins as monuments to the past, “to preserve the building fabric (in its ruinous condition) as physical evidence of history”; and finally, a combination of ruins and contrasting new architecture (Cortés, 2010). The architect discarded all of these approaches, placing the identity of place at the center of attention. He brought the meaning of the original building back to life by introducing minimalistic and modern insertions where the continuity of rooms was lost and reintegrating the original fragments in the re-established framework (Cortés, 2010, p.43). As a result, such approach added a new layer of meaning to the new building – that of the reflected story of war and decay arrested in those original fragments, partially stripped surfaces, and patched masonry walls (Moore, 2009). Given such a range of conservation approaches involved, was there any strategy involved in determining the nature of interventions in different parts of the building? According to Cortés, “the solution differs with the size of the gap or discontinuity that has to be resolved” (2010, p.43). Minor repairs were do not need to establish presence and have a unique character, while the larger insertions or repairs must bring “their own story” expressed through distinct material and physical character. For this reason, the major reconstruction areas undertook a new, modern and minimalist stylistic expression that is still in harmonious relationship with the original building fabric (ibid) (Figure 33). Overall, there was no single fundamental concept for the whole building but a caseby-case evaluation of context, where the condition of every room was examined to inform decisions. The original sequence of rooms was restored in compliance with the Venice Charter of 1964, with new sections accommodating spatial continuity between existing historic spaces. According to the architect, these new insertions, however, were not meant to contrast the history but to emphasize and include it to recreate the complete whole (David Chipperfield Architects, n.d.).

STRUCTURE The building structure was damaged extensively during the wars. The destroyed parts of the museum were reconstructed - – the north-east wing, the Egyptian courtyard, the south-east dome, and the central hall (Figures 34 – 35). The new structure in the Egyptian courtyard is almost freestanding, detached from the original walls, making a clear distinction between the new and the old. It provides

FOURTH FLOOR PLAN

THIRD FLOOR PLAN

SECOND FLOOR PLAN

GROUND FLOOR PLAN

Figure 34. Floor Plans Showing New and Retained Structure. From Cortes (2010).

for an additional usable space, as the platform partially covering the courtyard can be used as exhibition space (Figures 40; 44). The new insertions act as “bridges” between the original parts of the building. To achieve continuity between old and new, the architect refrained from excessive ornamentation and proposed volumes that are minimalistic and simple, made of just two primary materials – brick and prefabricated concrete (Rattenbury, 2010). The use of recycled handmade brick also added texture and physicality to the place along with the historic plaster, stone, and terrazzo (Figure 39). A significant new element, which became the heart and the public center of the museum, is the modern, minimalistic concrete staircase that follows the form of the original but not the ornamentation (Figure 38).

ENCLOSURE The reconstruction of facades follows the rhythm and the order of the original, yet distinguishes itself clearly. The southeast wing is a modernized version of the historic component that continues the historic mood without replicating it (Figure 32). The distinction in material and minimalist trim style, with windows being recessed in the masonry walls, is apparent to the viewer (Bollack, 2013, p.214). By combining enclosed and heavily enclosed spaces and open and transparent areas the architect achieved a variety of levels of experience. In the rooms, a user is completely enclosed by heavy masonry, encapsulated by historic fragments; then they are moving through light and transparent courtyards taking a little more distant observer’s position; and finally, reach the outside and looking at the building as a whole, forming a third, distant experience (Figure 37).

INHABITATION AND USE The original spatial organization was retained: the main two courtyards – the Egyptian Courtyard to the north (Figure 40) and the Greek Courtyard to the south (Figure 41) – separated by the central hall with the monumental staircase, and a sequence of interconnected rooms on the perimeter. The rooms functions were mostly preserved, with some new spaces in the reconstructed areas, such as technical area, employee entrance, museum shop, etc. to accommodate the current needs of the museum (Figure 42).

Figure 35. Cross-Section Through the Staircase Showing New and Retained Structure. From Cortes (2010).

Figure 36. Inside the Staircase Hall with the New Stair. From Cortes (2010).

Figure 37. Cross-Section Diagram: Enclosure Gradation. Created with data from David Chipperfield Architects (n.d.).

Figure 38. Staircase Hall: Old vs New Staircase. Created with data from David Chipperfield Architects (n.d.).

Figure 39. Material Pallette of the Greek Courtyard. From Delood (2016).

Figure 40. New Structure in the Egyptian Courtyard. From Lintner (n.d.).

Figure 41. View of the Greek Courtyard. From David Chipperfield Architects (n.d.).

Figure 42. Inhabitation and Use of the Original vs. New Design. Created with data from Cortes (2010).

Figure 43. Circulation Floor Plans. Created with data from Cortes (2010).

MOVEMENT The restored sequence of rooms helped maintain the same movement patterns as in the original building. Visitors can explore room by room or enter the courtyards on multiple levels. The central hall with the staircase, which connects ground, second, and third floors, is the main gathering area, to which visitors flow from all the other rooms due to its central location (Figure 43). The new structure in the Egyptian courtyard allowed for access to the space from multiple floors: it provides access to the platform on the second level and a balcony on the ground floor, overlooking the lower level (Figure 44).

Figure 44. View of the Egyptian Courtyard Showing Access from the Lower and Ground Level. From David Chipperfield Architects (n.d.).

Building a pagoda means joining wood. Joining wood means matching the woodâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s traits. Matching the wood traits means matching human traits. Matching human traits means matching human hearts.

Japanese Proverb

Figure 45. View of the Kon-do, Horyu-ji temple near Nara. From Time Travel Turtle (n.d.).

3: JAPAN â&#x20AC;&#x201C; KON-DO (MAIN HALL), HORYU-JI TEMPLE Location: Ikaruga, Nara Prefecture Originally Built: 607 Renovations Completed: 1955

Figure 46. The Map of Horyu-ji Temple. Kon-do is Located in the West Precinct. From Askaen Inc.(n.d.).

Figure 47. Floor Plan and Section (elements shown in black were replaced by 1954). From Gutschow & Enders (1998).

PROJECT BACKGROUND The Kon-do of the Horyu-ji temple was originally built in 607 AD. Founded by Price Regent Shotoku Taishi, the temple was used as a seminary, monastery, and a peaceful retreat for his retirement (Gunther, n.d.). The temple is widely known for the following reasons: -

It is considered to have the oldest Buddhist monuments in Japan, holding over 2,300 important artefacts and structures (Japan Web Magazine, 2018) It was the first site in Japan added to the UNESCO World Heritage List in 1993 (ibid). It is widely celebrated in Japan due to its significance as the temple having the oldest wooden structures in the world (ibid).

The original buildings burned down in 670, and were rebuilt in a new location in the second half of 7th â&#x20AC;&#x201C; beginning of the 8th century. Since then, the temple went through a complex sequence of traditional maintenance and conservation practices: repairs, reconstruction, and additions (Gunther, n.d.). The territory occupied by the temple is split into a West Precinct and an East Precinct, each having a courtyard (Gunther, n.d.). The building under study is the Main Hall at the heart of the West Precinct (Figure 46). After the major fire in 670 AD, the Main Hall was completed by 680, and although having experienced reconstructions, it stayed in an unchanged form. It was protected and actively funded in the past due to its significance as a guarding temple of the Empire. However, with the coming of Meiji, when Shinto gained influence, the Buddhist temples started to decay, including Horyu-ji. Finally, with the new law of 1897, Law for the Preservation of Ancient Shrines and Temples, the temple became protected ever since (JAPAN/HORYU-JI, n.d.).

FUNDAMENTAL CONSERVATION STRATEGY AND NATURE OF INTERVENTIONS Prior to Meiji era, three major repair works were done on Horyu-ji temple: in the 13th century and the beginning and end of the 17th century. They involved minor changes, yet the overall the form remained unchanged. In between those reconstructions, continuous preventive maintenance and smaller conservation activities took place, such as replacing the roof tiles and retouching of finishes. (ibid) After Meiji period, large-scale conservation works were carried out in three phases over a 90-year period, between 1895 and 1985. Specifically, the Kon-do was investigated and repaired, along with the other 22 buildings, between 1934 and 1955. A combination of

Figure 48. Saved Original Wood Members Damaged by the Fire in 1949. From Gutschow & Enders (1998).

Figure 49. Wall Paintings Damaged by Fire in 1949. From Wikipedia (2012).

techniques was used, including complete or partial dismantlement, repair and restoration. Thorough scientific analysis determined what method should be used in each case (ibid). The policy for partial restoration of the building components from the 17th century to the original design was based on the four conditions: 1. “The later alterations were limited to minor ornamental design features and had not changed the basic fabric of the building” (Yamato, 2011, p. 17). 2. “Overall, the original design and materials were in a good state of preservation” (ibid) 3. “There was adequate evidence of most features of the original design to enable accurate restoration without conjecture” (ibid) 4. “Horyu-ji has outstanding value as a unique example of Asuka Period architecture” (ibid). Partial restoration was allowed for this project; nevertheless, if the non-original members served as a structural reinforcement, they were not removed. For example, steel connectors were used to retain as much original fabric as possible without directly disturbing the original structure (JAPAN/HORYU-JI, n.d.). As a result of such vigorous investigations and detailed reporting, conservation of Horyu-ji temple became a fundamental model for all the wooden temple conservation projects across Japan (JAPAN/HORYU-JI, n.d.).

STRUCTURE The traditional wood-frame Japanese construction allows members to be dismantled and reconstructed without any damage to the original wooden members themselves. This is a so-called joint construction method, which makes the structure “reversible”. Such method of structural design implies a long-term consideration of periodic reconstructions, and together with the Kiku and Kiwari methods, allows carpenters to achieve perfect matching of the new structure to its original (JAPAN/HORYU-JI, n.d.). Major replacement of wooden members took place due to fire damage during the reconstruction, in 1949. The members, highlighted in black in Figure 47 were reconstructed to be the exact copies of the original components. The carpenters used the same wood species and even applied many of the tools and techniques common in the 7th century traditional construction, thus achieving authenticity of techniques. The damaged wooden pieces are kept in a newly-constructed fire-rated warehouse and are on display to the public and scientific community (Larsen & Marstein, 2000, p. 21).

Figure 50. Section Diagram: Enclosure Gradation. Created with data from Gutschow & Enders (1998).

The original deep roof overhang caused wearing of supporting structure, and corner struts were added to reinforce it. Overloading also led to replacement of bracketing and rafters. Otherwise, the original materials were preserved as much as possible (Yamato, 2011, p.18). In addition, steel reinforcement was introduced to replace the timber members inserted by 17th century carpenters, as the old components were seen as unsightly. This decision also allowed for restoration to the original 7th century form (Larsen, 1994, p. 96). Overall, after all the conservation work, 50 – 55% of the original fabric was retained in the first-storey structure, and approximately 70% in the upper portion on the building (Yamato, 2011, p. 18). However, according to a different source, only 15 – 20 % of the original fabric is present in today’s Kon-do (Larsen & Marstein, 2000, p. 21).

ENCLOSURE Traditional Japanese walls are paper-thin, bringing in natural light and the “sense of unbroken continuity with nature”. This connection to the outside is also reinforced by sheltered semi-enclosed area under the extended eaves (Figure 50).

INHABITATION AND USE The building looks as if it is a two-storey structure; however, the upper part only consists of the structural roof members and is not intended for use. At the very heart of the kon-do is moya - a central sacred area located directly under the main part of the roof, which houses the altar and images of Buddha. The central space is extremely limited, as the original halls were not designed to accommodate worshipers, who occupy perimeter aisle-like spaces, called hisashi. In this particular kon-do, hisashi also extends into the open veranda under the eaves (Japanese Architecture and Art Net Users System, n.d.) (Figure 53).

MOVEMENT Due to the functional continuity of the Kon-do the movement patterns stayed the same as in the original building, as shown in Figure 54.

Figure 51. Faรงade Materiality. From Japan Web Magazine (n.d.).

Figure 52. Eaves Detail. From Japan Web Magazine (n.d.).

Figure 53. Floor Plan Showing Inhabitation and Use. Created with data from Gutschow & Enders (1998).

Figure 54. Circulation Floor Plan. Created with data from Gutschow & Enders (1998).

100

CONCLUSION Based on the prior research, it was anticipated that the case studies would deploy the three major approaches to conservation in proportions as indicated in Figures 55 - 57. However, after the further analysis it appears to be that the values-based model is the dominant approach. In the Western case studies, followed by the value of the building fabric, and in the Japanese temple – by the peoples-based approach due to the use of traditional craft techniques used in the conservation process.

VALUES

MATERIAL PEOPLE

Figure 55. Old Post Office Anticipated Conservation Approach (Venn Diagram).

Thus, various stakeholder values were considered modernizing the building to suit contemporary needs, while preserving and repairing the original building fabric.

The Neues Museum was initially anticipated to focus on the materials and building form, rather than the buildings role for the community and other stakeholders. However, as the architect strived to retain material authenticity and balance the new and the old, the local community concerns were not simply considered but actively addressed, which caused the project to extend over ten years.

MATERIAL

VALUES PEOPLE

Figure 56. Neues Museum Anticipated Conservation Approach (Venn Diagram).

101

It is evident that the Old Post Office was conserved using a values-based framework, since the desire to preserve the building fabric was compromised with the client’s requirement to increase programmable area and arrive at a financially feasible project. This rehabilitation project was led using a top-down approach, with local community providing some input into interpreting the building’s value. The focus was still on the building fabric as a carrier of cultural significance.

The architect’s approach was to reveal the history of destructions of wars and decay in the building’s materiality and form. This led to engaging with and creating new meanings and experiences for the museum’s active users. As is in the previous case, the values-based approach seems to prevail, with a greater emphasis on human experiences and associations, compared to the Old Post Office.

Traditional Japanese architecture is conserved by communities leading the process. Ongoing conservation practices support their spiritual connection to buildingsas anchors of their culture and spirit of a place. Thefabric retention is important, however, not alwayspossible or seen as the primary indicator of heritagevalue.

PEOPLE

VALUES MATERIAL

Figure 57. Horyu-ji Temple Anticipated Conservation Approach (Venn Diagram).

However, due to this temple complex being listed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site, it has increased attention of the global community. The international recognition significantly affects the conservation process. Thus, it was led by authorities, incorporating various stakeholdervalues, rather than associations of immediatecommunities. It can be assumed that in this particular case, valuesbased and peoples-based approaches were almost equally followed considering a fine balance between the role of the Horyu-ji temple to the local community and the global societies at large. The traditional conservation methods, tools, and techniques were still utilized, indicating the peoples-based aspect of the conservation process.

Overall, the values-based approach seems to dominate in the three cases analyzed, with the role of building fabric and local communities having a varied influence on the conservation process. It is still evident that the Eastern approach gears towards conservation of the process and traditional craft techniques, while the Western conservation focuses primarily on the retention of building fabric, while modernizing the space for the present use.

102

CONCLUSIONS The finding of this research and investigations focus on the following key issues:

Heritage Dilemma

The need to prioritize what to retain and what to let go into the past creates multiple approaches to determining value in a historic building and how it should be treated. This dilemma comes from the inconsistency in the way we perceive past and define the purpose of conservation.

Three Major Frameworks of Conservation

The materials-based, values-based, and peoples-based approaches developed in sequence and reflect the transition of the role of conservation. It reflected in change in focus from the retention of culture in the physical end product to its creation and recreation, putting local communities in the center of the conservation process. Despite the sequential development of the three conservation frameworks, the modern approach is not about rejecting the more traditional materials- and values-based models. Culturally sustainable conservation is becoming an all-encompassing complex paradigm of retention of historic fabric, reflection of cultural values, and enhancing personal experiences, balanced to achieve the continuing contribution of heritage to present and future generations.

West vs East Approaches and Case Study Synopsis

The case studies analyzed are not meant to represent the approach to conservation in that particular culture at large. No attempts of generalization should be made, since in each culture there exists a vast variety of project types, conservation methods, and other factors influencing the nature of intervention into historic buildings. As reflected in the Old Post Office and the Neues Museum, the retention of the building fabric and form is the main subject of conservation process. The focus is getting broader, however, as both projects recognized the context-specific values and the needs of the active community of users. The Neues Museum also incorporated experiences and associations with the building in its new design, implying a peoples-based perspective. Overall, the case studies support the idea of â&#x20AC;&#x153;material fetishâ&#x20AC;? in the Western conservation and the ideals of permanence through retention of historic fabric and form identified in the prior research.

103

The Eastern conservation is characterized by a stronger spiritual connection to heritage. The practice of periodic reconstruction and partial dismantlement, considered unacceptable in the Western tradition, is a natural outcome for the Eastern context. The traditional practices are rooted in both the qualities of wood, having low resistance to environmental forces, and the spiritual view of the natural cycle of growth, decay, and rebirth in the Eastern culture. The Horyu-ji temple complex illustrated the Eastern approach focusing on the process and traditional craft rather than the end product. However, it appeared to have deployed a predominantly values-based approach due to its increased significance to the global community as the oldest wooden structures in the world.

Canadian Conservation Practice

Interviews with Canadian practitioners outlined a general picture of current conservation practice. Overall, there exists a dichotomy between conservation and new development, authorities and social values, and respect for heritage and financial profit. The field is slowly maturing towards a values-based approach to conservation. Legislation and governmental support are still yet to develop accordingly to accommodate successful implementation of culturally sustainable conservation projects. Lastly, competing objectives of project stakeholders make it difficult to find the right balance between financial profit and non-material benefits of conservation. Therefore, there is a need for both the practitioners and governments to raise public awareness and inspire the clients to see the real value and broader potential of heritage conservation.

The research arrives to a conclusion that through the expansion of perspective on what carries value, including historic fabric, context-specific values, and communitiesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; associations with their heritage, professionals can integrate cultural sustainability in their practice of recovering historic buildings.

104

EPILOGUE As the research has shown, there exists a variety of ways heritage is treated in our culturally rich and diverse world. As we have identified at the beginning of the discussion, the three major frameworks - materials-, values-, and peoples-based conservation – should be brought together to result in a culturally sustainable conservation project. It remains true for the projects, such as the Old Port Office and the Neues Museum, whose active use was interrupted by neglect and destruction of wars. The triple paradigm can then help “bring the buildings back to life” integrating them into the present through thoughtful retention of fabric, reflection of cultural values, and enhancement of people’s experiences with heritage. Yet, what if a historic building was continually used, cared for, and maintained? What if its functional continuity was not interrupted, as is in the case of Horyu-ji temple? The concept of continuity formulated the basis for the living heritage approach to conservation (Poulios, 2010). Originating from the Eastern spiritual view of historic buildings as “living entities” (Stubbs & Thomson, 2017), this potentially provocative approach emphasizes the concept of the continuity of the present community’s connection with their heritage, rooted in its original function. This continuity is reflected in the traditional methods of maintaining heritage, including “sacred and pragmatic controls, customary laws, traditions, taboos, and myths” (Poulios, 2010, p.176). Thus, in this approach, the traditional practices remain primary conservation methods, while the modern ones are used as supplementary methods (ibid). As a result of redefining conservation as a continual, ongoing process, the living heritage model rejects the importance of authenticity in conservation overall. Aiming for retention of any historical authenticity implies that heritage belongs to the past, while people - to the present. Poulios argues that in the living heritage approach, “authenticity is continually created and defined” by the local community, eliminating the need for retention of something at the risk of being lost: “… a values-based approach tends to see and protect a site as ‘heritage’, while a living heritage approach sees and enhances the further creation of a site as a ‘living reality’.” (ibid) Thus, it erases the boundaries of time by seeing the past as a part of the active present leading into the future. What is important to the living heritage conservation is the sustaining of human experiences and associations between people and their heritage, rather than the retention of physical material (ibid). It can be argued, therefore, that the living heritage approach as an act of ongoing conservation requires constant care, rejuvenation, and vigilance by the immediate community associated with heritage. The ongoing relationship from the past to the present lies in the very definition of sustainability, “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987, p. 8). This directly resonates with the concept of living heritage. Therefore, it is suggested that the richest and the most relevant way to incorporate cultural sustainability in architectural conservation is through embracing the view of living heritage and treating historic buildings as “living realities” through which culture is continually created and celebrated.

105

REFERENCES Bollack F.A., (2013). Old Buildings, New Forms: New Directions in Architectural Transformations. The Monacelli Press Bordeleau, A. (February 26, 2019). First Class Parcel. Canadian Architect. Retrieved March 7, 2019 from https://www.canadianarchitect.com/features/first-class-parcel-old-post-office-idea-exchangerdha/ Canada's Historic Places. (2003). Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada [PDF]. Retrieved March 12, 2019 from https://www.historicplaces.ca/en/pages/standards-normes.aspx?pid=1152&h=standards CortĂŠs, J. A. (2010). Conciliation of Opposites: Forms. El Croquis. (p.29-43) vol. 150 David Chipperfield Architects (n.d.) Neues Museum. Retrieved March 9, 2019 from https://davidchipperfield.com/project/neues_museum Design Within Reach. (n.d.). Sir David Chipperfield. Retrieved March 9, 2019 from https://www.dwr.com/designer-sir-david-chipperfield?srule=price-low-tohigh&sz=45&start=0&lang=en_US ERA Architects (June 23, 2014). Final Conservation Master Plan. Old Post Office Building, Cambridge. Retrieved March 7, 2019 from https://www.cambridge.ca/en/learn-about/Old-Post-Office.aspx Fairclough, G. (2001). Cultural Landscape, Sustainability, and Living with Change? in Teutonico, J. and Matero, F. (eds) Managing change: sustainable approaches to the conservation of the built environment papers from the 4th US/ICOMOS International Symposium, Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles. Forster, A. M., Thomson, D., Richards, K., Pilcher, N., & Vettese, S. (2018). Western and Eastern building conservation philosophies: Perspectives on permanence and impermanence. International Journal of Architectural Heritage, 1-16. DOI: 10.1080/15583058.2018.1490827 Gunther, M. D. (n.d.). Horyuji Temple. Retrieved April 14, 2019, from http://www.art-andarchaeology.com/japan/horyuji1.html Gutschow, N. & Enders, E. RCT (1998). Hozon: Architectural and Urban Conservation In Japan. Edition Axel Menges. ICOMOS. (2011). The Paris Declaration on Heritage as a Driver of Development. Retrieved February 23, 2019 from http://www.international.icomos.org

106

Ikegaya, M., (2013) Geographic Study of Historic Preservation: Evolving Cultural Landscape and Development of Modern Japan. International Council on Monuments and Sites., & Australia ICOMOS. (2013). The Burra Charter. Retrieved March 30, 2019 from https://australia.icomos.org/publications/charters/ Japan

Web Magazine. (2018). Horyuji. magazine.com/en/nara/horyuji

Retrieved

April

14,

2019,

from

https://japan-web-

JAPAN/HORYU-JI. (n.d.). Retrieved March 21, 2019, from http://bunka.nii.ac.jp/suisensyo/horyuji/start.html Japanese Architecture and Art Net Users System. http://www.aisf.or.jp/~jaanus/deta/m/moya.htm

(n.d.).

Retrieved

April

2019,

from

Jokilehto, J. (1986). A History of Architectural Conservation. The Contribution of English, French, German and Italian Thought towards an International Approach to the Conservation of Cultural Property. Retrieved March 2, 2019 from https://www.iccrom.org/publication/history-architecturalconservation Larsen, K. E. & Marstein, N. (2000). Conservation of Historic Timber Structures: An Ecological Approach. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann. Larsen, K. E. (1994). Architectural Preservation in Japan. Trondheim: Tapir Publishers. Lynch, K. (1972). What time is this place?. Cambridge: MIT Press Matero, F. (2001) Preface, in Teutonico, J. and Matero, F. (eds) Managing change: sustainable approaches to the conservation of the built environment papers from the 4th US/ICOMOS International Symposium, Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles. Moore, R. (May 1, 2009). Neues Museum by David Chipperfield Architects, Berlin, Germany. Retrieved March 9, 2019 from http://www.architectural-review.com/neues-museumby-davidchipperfield-architects-berlin-germany/8601182.article Poulios, I. (2010). Moving Beyond a Values-Based Approach to Heritage Conservation. Conservation & Management of Archaeological Sites, 12(2), 170â&#x20AC;&#x201C;185. https://doi.org/10.1179/175355210X12792909186539 Poulios, I. (2014). Past in the Present: A Living Heritage Approach - Meteora, Greece. London: Ubiquity Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/bak Rattenbury, K. (September 30, 2010). Neues Museum by David Chipperfield Architects in collaboration with Julian Harrap Architects. Retrieved from

107

http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/2011-stirling-prize/neues-museum-by-davidchipperfieldarchitects-in-collaboration-with-julian-harrap-architects/8606438.article RDH Architects. (2014). Cambridge Post Office. Schematic Design Presentation. Retrieved March 13, 2019 from https://www.cambridge.ca/en/learn-about/Old-Post-Office.aspx Rodwell, D. (2003). Sustainability and the Holistic Approach to the Conservation of Historic Cities, Journal of Architectural Conservation 9.1: 58-73. Rossi, A., Eisenman, P., Graham Foundation for Advanced Studies in the Fine Arts., & Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies. (1982). The Architecture of the City. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Soini, K., & Birkeland, I. (2014). Exploring the scientific discourse on cultural sustainability. Geoforum, 51, 213â&#x20AC;&#x201C;223. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GEOFORUM.2013.12.001 Stevens Burgess Architects Ltd. (January 19, 2015). Cultural Impact Assessment for the Old Galt Post Office IDEA Exchange and Restaurant Project. Cambridge, Ontario. Retrieved March 7, 2019 from https://www.cambridge.ca/en/learn-about/Old-Post-Office.aspx Stubbs, J. H., & Makas E. G. (2011). Architectural Conservation in Europe and Americas. Wiley& Sons Ed., New Jersey. Stubbs, J., Thomson, R. (2017). Architectural Conservation in Asia. London: Routledge, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315683447 Sully, D. (2015). Conservation Theory and Practice: Materials, Values, and People in Heritage Conservation. In The International Handbooks of Museum Studies (eds S. Macdonald and H. Rees Leahy). doi:10.1002/9781118829059.wbihms988 TEDx. (October 11, 2011). David Chipperfield - Why Does Everyone Hate Modern Architecture? Retrieved March 9, 2019 from http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/TEDxMarrakesh-DavidChipperfiel UNESCO. (1988). Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Wells, J.C. (2010). Valuing Historic Places: Traditional and Contemporary Approaches. School of Architecture, Art, and Historic Preservation Faculty Papers. Paper 22. Retrieved February 2, 2019 from http://docs.rwu.edu/saahp_fp/22 World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). (1987). Our Common Future (The Brundtland Report). New York: Oxford University Press. Yamato, S. (2011). The Tradition of Wooden Architecture in Japan. Agency for Cultural Affairs, Japan.

108

APPENDIX A Wells provides a summary of the guidelines for distinction between old and new fabric in a historic building (2010, p. 10).

109