22
This article was downloaded by: [University of California Santa Cruz] On: 25 November 2014, At: 21:22 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Irish Geography Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rigy20 What is worth conserving in the urban environment? Temporal shifts in cultural attitudes towards the built heritage in Ireland Elene Negussie a a Department of Geography , Trinity College , Dublin Published online: 26 Jan 2010. To cite this article: Elene Negussie (2004) What is worth conserving in the urban environment? Temporal shifts in cultural attitudes towards the built heritage in Ireland, Irish Geography, 37:2, 202-222, DOI: 10.1080/00750770409555843 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00750770409555843 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

What is worth conserving in the urban environment? Temporal shifts in cultural attitudes towards the built heritage in Ireland

  • Upload
    elene

  • View
    220

  • Download
    3

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: What is worth conserving in the urban environment? Temporal shifts in cultural attitudes towards the built heritage in Ireland

This article was downloaded by: [University of California Santa Cruz]On: 25 November 2014, At: 21:22Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Irish GeographyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rigy20

What is worth conserving in the urban environment?Temporal shifts in cultural attitudes towards the builtheritage in IrelandElene Negussie aa Department of Geography , Trinity College , DublinPublished online: 26 Jan 2010.

To cite this article: Elene Negussie (2004) What is worth conserving in the urban environment? Temporal shifts in culturalattitudes towards the built heritage in Ireland, Irish Geography, 37:2, 202-222, DOI: 10.1080/00750770409555843

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00750770409555843

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representationsor warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoevercaused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Page 2: What is worth conserving in the urban environment? Temporal shifts in cultural attitudes towards the built heritage in Ireland

What is worth conserving in the urban environment?Temporal shifts in cultural attitudes towards the built

heritage in Ireland

Elene NegussieDepartment of Geography, Trinity College, Dublin

ABSTRACTBuildings and built structures can be seen as physical assemblages of materialssuch as bricks, mortar, concrete, glass, etc. However, they can also be endowedwith meaning and value, something which changes over time. This value can beendowed with, for example, architectural, historical, economic, tourist, socialand cultural meaning. This paper is concerned with conservation of the builtheritage in an Irish urban context, with particular reference to Dublin City, andexplores cultural value judgements on what is worth conserving in the urbanenvironment and how this has changed over time. Such value judgements havebeen traced, for example, in the types of structure that have been afforded legalprotection status by the State or local authorities. This question is explored inthe context of cultural geography's approach to understanding the significanceof people's values and ideas in shaping the built environment.

Key index words: urban conservation, built heritage, cultural attitudes, Ireland.

Introduction

Evaluations of the built heritage are not neutral or objective. Rather, 'decisions toconserve, how to conserve, what to conserve, when to conserve and so on, are politicaldecisions that represent value-judgements' (McManus, 2000:107). Attitudes towards what isconsidered worth conserving become reflected in national policy and legislation, localplanning policy, heritage management and through lobbying by concerned citizens. In the1980s, geographers began to turn attention to the question of whose heritage is beingconserved in cities around the world. For example, Tunbridge (1984:171) raised this questionand stated that 'one person's landmark may be an object of indifference or hostility toanother'. In Dublin, the attacks on the city's famous equestrian statues over more than acentury and latterly on Nelson's Pillar in O'Connell Street may be taken to represent anti-colonial sentiment. Whelan (2001) discussed the iconography of public statues in O'ConnellStreet in Dublin and the way in which these have expressed competing ideologies.

The past decade witnessed significant improvements in attitudes towards conservation ofthe built heritage in Ireland, this reflected, for example, in the legislative framework and inthe planning system (Negussie, 2003). However, it is imperative that conservation agendasadopt a socially critical approach towards evaluation of the built heritage. This paper is basedon findings from research which explored the impact of cultural and political ideasunderlining varying approaches to built heritage conservation policy and its implementationin Ireland and Sweden (see Negussie, 2002). This enabled sharper focus to be given toestablishing the bases by which certain urban elements become deemed worthy ofconservation and the manner in which such evaluations and appraisals have tended to changeover time. The aim was partly to explore cultural value judgements on what is worth

Irish Geography, Volume 37(2), 2004,202-222.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 21:

23 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 3: What is worth conserving in the urban environment? Temporal shifts in cultural attitudes towards the built heritage in Ireland

Cultural attitudes towards the built heritage in Ireland 203

conserving in urban environments and how this has changed over time. Such value judgementswere traced in the legal framework for conservation and in the types of structure that areafforded legal protection status by State or local authorities. This question was explored in thecontext of cultural geography's approach to understanding the significance of people's valuesand ideas in shaping the built environment. The data were drawn from relevant documents andin-depth interviews with key people in the conservation and heritage sectors. The informantswere purposively sampled according to their knowledge and experience in conservationplanning, including policy advisors, State-body officials, town planners and conservationistsfrom voluntary bodies such as An Taisce, the Irish Georgian Society and the Dublin CivicTrust. In order to protect anonymity the interviewees are referred to as 'Conservationist','Planner', 'Policy Advisor', etc.

Several international charters have addressed different perspectives on what to conservein the built environment. For example, the Venice Charter stressed that the sites of monumentsmust be given special care in order to safeguard their integrity. It also established a broaddefinition of 'historic monument' embracing the urban or rural setting in which it is found,including more modest works of the past (ICOMOS, 1964). Moreover, the AmsterdamDeclaration stipulated that the architectural heritage constitutes not only individual buildingsof exceptional quality but also of areas of towns of historic or cultural importance (Council ofEurope, 1975). Similarly, the Granada Convention stressed that the architectural heritagecomprises both monuments, groups of buildings and sites (Council of Europe, 1985). TheWashington Charter stipulated that qualities contributing to the historic character of the townor urban area should be preserved, such as: urban patterns defined by lots and streets;relationships between buildings and green and open spaces; the relationship between the urbanarea and its surrounding setting; and, the different functions that an urban area has acquiredover time (ICOMOS, 1987). In Ireland, the introduction of conservation areas as a planningpolicy concept and the listing of streetscapes in the 1980s reflected somewhat of a shifttowards area-based conservation. Finally, the Charter on the Built Vernacular Heritage(IMCOMOS, 1999) stressed the vulnerability and importance of conserving the vernacularbuilt heritage. In Ireland, such a heritage includes many buildings designed and built by localbuilders with local building materials such as Irish cottages but also other modest buildings inurban settings.

The significance of values and ideas in shaping the built environment

Slater (1997) discussed the temporal shifts in evaluations of the built heritage, noting thatas cultural transformation of values occur so does the transformation of conserving historicaltownscapes. Governing political groups and the managerialist planning systems conservehistoric towns and cities since 'societies have invested with them meaning, cultural and socialvalue. These meaning and values are not fixed and unchanging, but are constantly beingnegotiated and re-evaluated' (Slater, 1997:150-1). However, Slater also suggested that withregard to representation, management systems often fail to represent the townscapes ofgroups lacking cultural and political power.

Since the 1980s, cultural geographers began to draw attention to issues relating tomeaning, values and the social construction of places. Given that cultural geography isconcerned with the impact of culture and the preconditions for human perceptions, it is auseful filter when exploring what different countries choose to preserve, as well as how theychoose to preserve their urban built environments. The relevance of people's values and ideasis stressed without the political economic context within which culture exists being ignored.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 21:

23 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 4: What is worth conserving in the urban environment? Temporal shifts in cultural attitudes towards the built heritage in Ireland

204 Negussie

For example:

In constructing cultures,... people construct geographies. They arrange spaces in dis-tinctive ways; they fashion certain types of landscape, townscape and streetscape;they erect monuments and destroy others; they evaluate spaces and places and adaptthem accordingly; they organise the relations between territories at a range of scalesfrom the local to the international. (Anderson and Gale, 1992,4)

Furthermore, Anderson and Gale (1992:5) asserted that 'if our urban environments havebeen adapted in the image of people's belief systems, so also do our physical landscapesprovide a window on cultural constructs'. Knox (1987:362) suggested that architecture canbe seen as a product of culture as well as a product of politics: 'what gets built is stronglyconditioned by the structure and dynamics of political power in society; how and where it getsbuilt is subject to a host of laws, codes, standards and regulations that reflect the interests ofpolitical powers and pressure groups'. Similarly, conservation of the built heritage can beseen as a process conditioned by culture and the structure and dynamics of political power.Thus, the past which is celebrated, or in other words considered worth conserving, is notgiven but refracted through the present and thus subject to differently empowered interestsand ideologies (e.g. Relph, 1987; Jacobs, 1992; Kearns and Philo, 1993).

For Phelps et al. (2002:3) 'the heritage of the built environment is not a result of hap-hazard survival, but rather the outcome of individual and group consciousness relating to asense of place. The built environment as it has survived is a cultural construction, itsappearance and meanings dependant on a complex process of selection, protection andintervention'. Tunbridge (1984:171) stressed that heritage perceptions vary according topolitical outlook, socio-economic class and by deeply rooted cultural and ethnic values, and,'the way the character and image of a city develop is a reflection primarily of the values ofwhichever social group is ascendant at the time'. Furthermore, the question of whose heritageis being conserved is dependent on two aspects, namely, what we identify as heritage and howwe interpret what is labelled as heritage. The selection process involved depends on factorssuch as cultural affinity, political affiliation and social class (Tunbridge, 1994).

With regard to the use of material heritage in contemporary Ireland, Graham (1994:148)maintained that the question of 'whose heritage is conserved and why' is dependent uponideological factors which determine why certain structures become heritage while others aredismissed, noting that 'the overtly anti-urban nature of Gaelic nationalist historiography wasconsequent upon the equation of towns with a landscape of oppression, built through theexpropriation of the production of the mass of the Gaelic peasantry'. Graham also suggestedthat the re-evaluation of which heritage should be conserved in Ireland has been determinedby factors such as economic forces and tourism.

The politics of identity is a crucial aspect when dealing with the built environment, be itfrom the perspective of public history, urban conservation or urban design. Hayden (1996:11)asserted that 'a politically conscious approach to urban preservation must go beyond thetechniques of traditional architectural preservation (making preserved structures intomuseums or attractive commercial real estate) to reach broader audiences. It must emphasizepublic processes and public memory'. Thus, urban conservation is not free from politicalunderpinnings and therefore dependent on a politically conscious dialogue. From thisperspective the past is dependent upon story-telling, and there will always be different storiesabout the past depending on whom you ask.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 21:

23 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 5: What is worth conserving in the urban environment? Temporal shifts in cultural attitudes towards the built heritage in Ireland

Cultural attitudes towards the built heritage in Ireland 205

Shifting cultural attitudes towards what to conserve in Ireland

As suggested above, value judgements on what to conserve become reflected in the typesof structures that have been afforded legal protection status. The National Monuments Acts(1930-1954) entitled the State and local authorities to afford legal protection to nationalmonuments. Under the National Monuments Act, 1930, the term monument was defined as'any artificial or partly artificial building, structure, or erection', while a national monumentwas defined as 'a monument or the remains of a monument the preservation of which is amatter of national importance by reason of the historical, architectural, traditional, artistic, orarchaeological interest attaching thereto'.

Under the National Monuments (Amendment) Act, 1987, the term historic monument wasdefined as 'a prehistoric monument and any monument associated with the commercial,cultural, economic, industrial, military, religious or social history of the place where it issituated or of the country and also includes all monuments in existence before 1700 AD or suchlater date as the Minister may appoint by regulations'. Although the definitions above reflecta broad interpretation of monuments, the application of the National Monuments Acts hastraditionally concerned medieval and pre-medieval built structures (DACG, 1996) and theyhave not been used extensively in an urban context. This is partly due to general limitations ofthe Acts, but also to perceptions in the past of the urban built heritage as a colonial legacy.

Within the planning code, the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963,gave discretionary powers to local authorities to protect 'buildings of artistic, architectural orhistorical interest', while the 1976 amendment to the same Act gave discretionary powers toprotect 'fixtures or features of artistic, historic or architectural interest and forming part of theinterior of structures'. With the introduction of the Local Government (Planning andDevelopment) Act, 1999, which has since been superseded and consolidated in Part IV of thePlanning and Development Act, 2000, the scope of protection has been broadened. Based onthe Granada Convention of 1985, it includes mandatory protection for designated structures ofarchitectural, historical, archaeological, artistic, cultural, scientific, technical or social interest.The scope of the Act also includes powers to designate architectural conservation areas. Thispiece of legislation reflects a widened approach to the consideration of conservation values inthe built environment. Thus, there has been a shift from discretionary powers to protectbuildings of artistic, architectural or historical interest to mandatory protection of structures ofarchitectural, historical, archaeological, artistic, cultural, scientific, technical or social interest,as well as areas of architectural significance.

With regard to the State's overall approach to conservation values in Ireland, Kealy(1997:67) summarises the situation in the past:

Some thirty years ago in Ireland, the great pre-Reformation andpre-Plantation mon-uments, the early Christian churches, the monasteries and castles, were maintainedas ruins by the State, respected in their antiquity as part of the pre-colonial past...In contrast, buildings of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were generally seenas the remnants of a colonising power and as obstacles to progress. They wereaccorded ineffectual protection under the Planning Acts and were not regarded asnational monuments or seen as the responsibility of the State.

However, the State has through the Office of Public Works (OPW), which is responsiblefor State-owned buildings, undertaken a series of architectural conservation projects in thepast. As suggested by Gibney (1999:19) 'the repair, renovation and conservation of historic

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 21:

23 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 6: What is worth conserving in the urban environment? Temporal shifts in cultural attitudes towards the built heritage in Ireland

206 Negussie

buildings have been an important part of the State architect's traditional role for over twocenturies'. For example, during the 1920s the OPW undertook reconstruction work on theCustom House, the Four Courts and the General Post Office in Dublin, all important Georgianset pieces which had been severely damaged as a result of political turmoil and the quest foran independent Ireland, in the early twentieth century. The OPW was for long the principalnational body responsible for conservation through the National Monuments Acts. However,Republican and anti-British sentiments help explain the limited view of conservation by thisbody during the 1950s and 1960s.

As a result of Ireland's entry into the EEC in 1973, funding became available for capitalinvestment in national and historic parks, protection of national monuments and nationalcultural institutions through Structural Funds programmes. Consequently, this led to aspecialisation of many architects in conservation. In the 1980s, the Government adopted anapproach of finding new uses for many of its older buildings, which led to, for example, thecreation of a conference centre at Dublin Castle and the conversion of part of CollinsBarracks into additional premises for the National Museum (O'Doherty, 1999). In the mid-1990s, Duchas was formed as a special State organisation for heritage protection in a broadsense and some of the responsibilities of the OPW were transferred to the new body. AlthoughDuchas has recently been deconstructed as a separate heritage organisation, its short-livedexistence contributed to the establishment of a 'heritage sector' in Ireland.

Under the Heritage Act, 1995, the Heritage Council was established as an independentstatutory body, its mandatory functions being to propose policies and priorities for theidentification, protection, preservation and enhancement of the national heritage, including awide brief ranging from heritage gardens, archaeological and architectural heritage to flora,fauna and wildlife habitants, and, in particular to promote interest, education, knowledge andpride in, and facilitate the appreciation and enjoyment of the national heritage. The HeritageCouncil has adopted a conservation plan methodology, based on Australian and Englishmodels, using a four-stage process including the understanding of a place, identification ofvulnerability of issues having an impact on the significance of a place, leading to the adoptionof policies to protect the significant features of a place. The first such conservation plan inIreland in an urban context was recently adopted for Portlaw, a factory town developed by theMalcolmsons in county Waterford in the early decades of the nineteenth century. The HeritageCouncil has also published awareness raising documents on the industrial heritage and iscurrently undertaking review in the field of vernacular heritage.

Towards the end of the 1990s the State expressed a commitment to a nationalconservation agenda through the introduction of comprehensive conservation legislation. Aspart of this, the National Inventory of the Architectural Heritage (NIAH) was placed on astatutory basis with national standards and systematic recording of the architectural heritage.Categories designated for evaluation of the architectural heritage under the NIAH are basedon a five-tiered structure including ratings such as international, national, regional, local andrecord only. In order to determine the evaluation of a particular structure or site, specificmerits are assigned with codes such as: A (Architectural), H (Historic), T (Technical), V(Vernacular), etc. The attribution given to a structure is not fixed since societal values orjudgement change over time (Duchas, 1999). While it is an objective of the NIAH to achievea comprehensive coverage of the built heritage, it has so far concentrated on places other thanDublin City. This is because Dublin City is regarded as having the longest tradition ofconservation in Ireland and since smaller inventories have been carried out as a result ofvoluntary initiatives.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 21:

23 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 7: What is worth conserving in the urban environment? Temporal shifts in cultural attitudes towards the built heritage in Ireland

Cultural attitudes towards the built heritage in Ireland 207

Shifts in attitudes towards what is considered worth conserving are also reflected in theapproach taken by conservationist groups lobbying for conservation. A comment column ofthe Irish Builder & Engineer in 1975 (p. 33) illustrates the point:

Perhaps it is not too ambitious to suggest that An Taisce in its noble and splendidconservation efforts might concentrate a little more strongly on the preservation ofancient cottages in this country... All too rapidly they are disappearing or being'improved' out of recognition... Admirable as our 18th-century work is in Dublin, itis not everything, and it is desirable to have all phases of a country's architecturewell recorded, even types that can boast little 'architecture'proper, but representcertain traditional types.

Nevertheless, by 1980, then Chairman of An Taisce (The National Trust for Ireland)argued that one of the voluntary organisation's aims was also the promotion of 'vernaculararchitecture':

An Taisce has been in the vanguard in promoting an appreciation for vernaculararchitecture. So much of the built environment is shaped by the 'everyday buildings'that are not normally considered worthy of preservation, but whose disappearanceall over Europe has had a detrimental effect on the character of our towns. The valueof such 'everyday buildings' is often recognised elsewhere in Europe by the desig-nation of conservation areas to protect streetscapes and whole groups of vernacularbuildings. (Mullally, 1980:1)

While voluntary conservation groups might have lobbied for a more limited range ofelements in the urban built environment in the past, this should be considered in the light ofthe lack of responsibility taken by national and local authorities for conservation untilrelatively recently. As suggested by an interviewed conservationist there has been an overallprogression of awareness amongst conservationists. For example, the Irish Georgian Society(IGS) would now take a broader approach to conservation than in the past:

When voluntary bodies took it up... in the late 1950s and 1960s, the older the build-ing the more they would have focused on it. So it would have been the eighteenthcentury... It is in the 1990s that we have specifically turned our attention toVictorian buildings... The IGS never refused to protest against their damage ordestruction but it would have become, in the 1980s and 1990s, much more aware ofthe Victorian heritage. It would also consider that and would be fighting for the list-ing and attention and respect for it. The IGS would consider streetscapes extremelyimportant and always has. Industrial architecture, it has not specifically gone outlooking but would think that industrial architecture is very important, as importantas anything else. We are all, the voluntary bodies as well, becoming much moreaware of the different eras and that everything is important. The IGS has writtenabout a couple of modern buildings. A number of them are listed and the IGS wouldlobby for more of them to be listed. (Conservationist 3, 2000)

This paper now moves to explore the evolution of the types of structure that have beenafforded legal protection status by the local authority in Dublin City.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 21:

23 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 8: What is worth conserving in the urban environment? Temporal shifts in cultural attitudes towards the built heritage in Ireland

208 Negussie

The case of Dublin City

Overview: 1950-2000

During the 1950s, the official view of what was worth conserving in Dublin Cityincluded a limited number of medieval buildings, great architectural set pieces and twoGeorgian squares in the south inner city. The first major planning scheme for Dublin City inmodern times was the 1957 Planning Scheme, adopted prior to the introduction of the LocalGovernment (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, which introduced town planning as astatutory requirement and made conservation one of several town planning objectives.McDonald (1986:11-12) observed that the degree to which the planning scheme reflected aconsideration for conservation of the built heritage was rather limited:

The Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland (MAI) sought to have most of the his-toric city southside Georgian core area listed for preservation — includingFitzwilliam Street, Lower Baggot Street, Upper Mount Street, Hume Street, ElyPlace, Clare Street and Lower Leeson Street. But the planners and the city council-lors ignored this recommendation and limited the preservation zone just to MerrionSquare and Fitzwilliam Square. In effect, what the Corporation was saying was thatthe only parts of Dublin worth preserving were these two Georgian squares andnothing else. This amounted to a charter for the demolition of the city and, as such,it was to have the most appalling consequences.

While preservation of these two squares was considered sufficient by the local authority,the State was mainly concerned with buildings from the pre-colonial past such as earlyChristian churches, monasteries and castles, maintained as national monuments. The Casino atMarino, an architectural masterpiece building from the Georgian period taken intoguardianship by the State in 1932, was for a long time the only national monumentrepresenting the legacy of the eighteenth century. However, important State-owned Georgianset-piece buildings such as those designed by James Gandon were maintained by the OPW asstated above.

During the 1960s, appreciation for the Georgian built heritage deepened somewhat,reflected in the 1971 Dublin Development Plan (Dublin Corporation, 1971), first published indraft form in 1967. Priority was given to the preservation of old churches, eighteenth-centuryGeorgian landmark buildings (e.g. Tailor's Hall, City Hall, the Mansion House, PoWerscourtHouse and Marsh's Library) and terraced buildings in the south side Georgian core, e.g. HumeStreet (Figure 1). A few landmark buildings and high profile residential squares in the innersuburbs from the Victorian period were also listed for preservation. Although regarded as lessworthy, consideration was also given to Georgian terraces in the less financially viable northinner city (e.g. Eccles Street, North Great George's Street and Mouutjoy Square) as well asbuildings in Victorian districts in the south inner suburbs. These were placed on a list ofbuildings of which the planning authority would 'consider' rather than 'secure' forpreservation. The modest approach to listing was a reflection of the value judgements, not onlyof the local authority, but also of voluntary conservation bodies. For example, the IrishGeorgian Society was mainly concerned with important Georgian architecture. The listingswere based on An Taisce's view of what to conserve in Dublin City as recommended in itsAmenity Study of Dublin and Dun Laoghaire in 1967. However, only those classified as ofmajor architectural importance were listed, while An Taisce had also outlined several areaswhich required special consideration in terms of development control (An Taisce, 1967).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 21:

23 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 9: What is worth conserving in the urban environment? Temporal shifts in cultural attitudes towards the built heritage in Ireland

Cultural attitudes towards the built heritage in Ireland 209

Figure 1: Georgian terrace in Hume Street, south city Dublin (Negussie, 2002).

Nevertheless, although a limited scope of Georgian buildings was beginning to be designatedfor conservation, a significant proportion of this building stock was demolished in the 1960s.For example, the demolition of Georgian buildings in Hume Street and Fitzwilliam Streetresulted in landmark conservation battles fought by students and voluntary conservationbodies. As noted by one informant: 'in the 1960s they were knocking down Georgianbuildings in Dublin. I was one of the Hume Street occupiers. That changed very considerablyin the decades since the early 1970s' (Semi-State-Body Official 1, 2001).

In the 1970s, while there was growing concern for Georgian buildings, there was also anincreased degree of appreciation for buildings from the Victorian period. This was reflected inthe 1980 Dublin City Development Plan (Dublin Corporation, 1980), which contained asignificantly increased number of listed landmark buildings from the nineteenth century. TheSouth City Markets in South Great George's Street, completed in 1881 but extensivelyremodelled following a fire in 1892, is an example of a landmark Victorian building, which theplanning authority intended to 'consider' for preservation in the 1971 Development Plan(Figure 2). To some degree the local authority agenda for conservation also reflectedrecognition of other structures such as shop-fronts, important tum-of-the-century buildings andcertain industrial buildings, although, these were not afforded strong protection.

However, the 1980 Dublin City Development Plan reflected recognition of the necessityfor a more area-based approach to conservation, although in a limited way, through theintroduction of conservation areas, outlined on the development plan map, although as a non-statutory concept. Also, more emphasis was placed on protection of streetscapes. As

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 21:

23 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 10: What is worth conserving in the urban environment? Temporal shifts in cultural attitudes towards the built heritage in Ireland

210 Negussie

suggested by a senior planner, during the 1980s 'we saw the value of the street, the squareand the space' (Planner 2,2000).

The 1980s also saw a general broadening of the range of buildings considered worthy ofconservation. There was a growing appreciation for the Georgian, Victorian and Edwardianbuildings, all regarded as colonial legacy. Dublin has a great legacy of buildings from theVictorian period, especially in the outer parts of the city. Daly (1998) suggests that theprogression of public awareness of Victorian buildings has taken longer compared to the builtheritage of the Georgian period. This hesitant appreciation for Victorian buildings was partlydue to neglect and decay of these as a result of the middle-class flight from the inner to theouter suburbs, intensified by the existence of government subsidies on new homes for owner-occupiers from 1924. As explained by Daly (1998:56-7):

Within one or two generations these legislative changes transformed the populationof greater Dublin, and urban Ireland in general, from mainly tenant to mainlyowner-occupiers. In the process, however, Victorian houses languished in neglect,and areas such as Rathmines and Drumcondra became synonymous with squalidflat-land. The lack of appreciation shown for Victorian buildings in general did nothelp their preservation. The rehabilitation of Victorian houses today is due to sever-al factors: greater wealth, more readily available home finance for house purchase,and modern technology... There is a greater appreciation of Ireland's Victorian her-itage, and the older suspicion that attached to houses that were strongly associatedwith the Anglo-Irish has also receded.

Figure 2: South City Markets: Victorian landmark building in south central Dublin (Negussie, 2002).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 21:

23 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 11: What is worth conserving in the urban environment? Temporal shifts in cultural attitudes towards the built heritage in Ireland

Cultural attitudes towards the built heritage in Ireland 211

Furthermore, interviewees noted that this building stock survived due to the fact that itwas located in areas where there was little development pressure: 'Victorian and Edwardianbuildings were largely saved by the fact that they were in modest and more conservativesuburbia. People did not demolish these buildings. They were efficient, well built and solid.They served a purpose, so they did not come under too much threat' (Conservationist 1,2000). Another informant similarly explained:

A lot of the Victorian and Edwardian buildings were not in areas that were underpressure... There were less people interested in the Victorian, perhaps because theywere rather cruder buildings, more massive and exuberant in a way. The Edwardiantended to be rather suburban. They were not in the pressure areas. They were ableto survive in their own right because they were big enough and they had not beenturned into slums, whereas the Georgian were delicate things with interiors aswell.... (Planner 1,2000)

In the 1980s there was also a call for listing of the best architecture representing allperiods including modern. Critique by conservationists was also directed at the lack ofpreservation status for ordinary and more mundane buildings, or 'vernacular architecture'.For example, as seen above, An Taisce began to promote the conservation of vernaculararchitecture. The organisation also highlighted lack of protection of Georgian buildings in thenorth inner city, and the need for a more holistic approach by including mews and interiorsfor protection (An Taisce, 1985). Until the early 1990s, the local authority conservationagenda was still limited to a pre-occupation with buildings of exceptional architecturalsignificance. As suggested by McDonald (1989:21): 'to the extent that architecturalconservation figures at all in official thinking, it is tied to the limited notion of preserving thegreat monuments... Any city with a degree of civility would preserve its great monuments.What divides the great cities from the mean ones is their attitude towards ordinary buildings'.Furthermore, there was a call made for the conservation of a more recent architecture, asproposed by McDonald (1986:325):

The planners must not be myopic, and their lists should be broadened to cover thebest architecture of all periods, right up to the present day. Thus, some protectionmight be given to the art deco headquarters of the Gas Company in D 'Olier Streetor Burton's, on the corner of Dame Street and South Great George's Street, as wellas such modern buildings as Busaras, the US Embassy, Irish Life's former head-quarters on Mespil Road, TCD's library, Lisney's, Bord Bainne, Bowmaker's, Bordna Mona and perhaps one or two others.

These considerations were to some degree manifested in the 1991 Dublin CityDevelopment Plan (Dublin Corporation, 1991), reflecting a shift, albeit limited, towardsconcern for more recent architecture, industrial buildings, mews, streetscapes and residentialareas. This shift was accentuated by the introduction of the 1999 Dublin City DevelopmentPlan (Dublin Corporation, 1999). In addition, public street monuments were introduced as anew category of structures to be preserved (e.g. the Henry Grattan monument at CollegeGreen and monuments in O'Connell Street such as the O'Connell and Sir John Graymonuments). As noted by one interviewee these had not been placed on the conservationagenda until recently since they had been taken for granted the past: 'I think people take themfor granted to a large extent and did not really consider them specific objectives forconservation. I think they are becoming more so now. You will find them individually listedand protection put in place for them in a way that would not have been previously' (Policy

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 21:

23 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 12: What is worth conserving in the urban environment? Temporal shifts in cultural attitudes towards the built heritage in Ireland

212 Negussie

Advisor 2, 2000). Another informant also explained that the degree to which streetmonuments had been appreciated in the past was related to the historical associations of suchstructures:

Monuments have always had a certain respect in this country, provided they arerelated to the local history, or what is described as Irish history. If they had an Angloassociation they were treated with less respect, like some very fine monuments overtheyears like Nelson's Pillar. The War Memorial park was vandalised by people whodid not realise that there was actually aesthetic and cultural value in them and thatdoing so was not really a political statement. There is a lot of respect for monumentsnow I hope. (Planner 2,2000)

Due to legislative reform the old grading system with 'listed buildings' (e.g. List 1, List2) was replaced with a Record of Protected Structures on first of January 2000. The newlegislative measures included stronger enforcement powers for local authority with newinstruments allowing for a more holistic approach to conservation of built structures and areas.

Industrial built heritage

Industrial buildings can cover anything from power generation stations to big millbuildings, grain storage buildings and warehouses. In Dublin City, in spite of a growingconcern for industrial buildings many warehouses had been lost before awareness began toarise: 'in the 1980s, industrial archaeology was beginning to be sounded off, but we had losta lot of the warehouses in the meantime that nobody felt had any particular value. They weregone at that stage so there was not much left of the industrial warehouses. A few of themremained and a few of them were gutted' (Planner 2, 2000).

Nevertheless, with the 1991 Dublin City Development Plan there was a growingrecognition of the importance of the industrial heritage, reflected in the increase of buildingsmeriting listed building status in the Dublin Docklands, and, for example, the increase innumbers of warehouses listed for protection. The plan comprised at least 30 warehousesunder List 2, most of them dating from the nineteenth century, e.g. Stack A at Custom HouseDock. Figure 3 illustrates Stack A under refurbishment, a warehouse building designedc.l 820, initially constructed to provide tobacco and wine storage. In 1996, the DublinDocklands Development Authority, in charge of urban renewal in the docklands,commissioned the School of Architecture of UCD to undertake inventory of the architecturaland industrial archaeological heritage in the Dublin Docklands Area. The survey included areview of buildings and structures listed under the 1991 Dublin City Development Plan(School of Architecture UCD, 1996).

Thus, there was a growing awareness of the industrial built heritage during the 1990s.Part of the reason why these buildings were neglected in the past was that 'industrialbuildings tended to be in areas where the middle classes who were concerned withconservation had very little interest' (Conservationist 1, 2000). As suggested by anotherinformant the industrial built heritage still remains to be under threat and 'there is very littleappreciation of the industrial heritage' (Conservationist 2, 2000). Furthermore, he noted thatin the past, if an industrial building became listed for protection its machinery would not beincluded. Nevertheless, as argued by a policy advisor who supported the view that theindustrial heritage is still endangered, the lack of protection of industrial buildings was notunique to Ireland: 'industrial has always been a wobbly one. It is still a wobbly one in the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 21:

23 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 13: What is worth conserving in the urban environment? Temporal shifts in cultural attitudes towards the built heritage in Ireland

Cultural attitudes towards the built heritage in Ireland 213

Figure 3: Stack A at Custom House Dock: warehouse refurbishment in the Dublin Docklands(Negussie, 2002).

sense of the exteut to which it is protected and considered worthy of protection. The industrialheritage is still not very comprehensively protected. People thought it was fairly mundane. Idon't think it is just an Irish phenomenon' (Policy Advisor 2, 2000). Another informantexplabed that few industrial buildings have been successfully refurbished partly due topractical difficulties:

There is not a town in Ireland that does not have a great five or six storey warehouse.These are buildings that are hugely important in a townscape. Their previous use isgone, but they could certainly be adapted to another use. But there are hardly anythat are being successfully done... Practically speaking if you have a seven-storeybuilding and one slate goes it is not easy to get it back It is not easy to take vegeta-tion out of the gutter and when water starts getting in they just get derelict. So thereare practical difficulties with industrial buildings. (Semi-State-Body Official 1,2001)

Cottages and mews

The only cottages that were listed prior to the 1991 Dublin City Development Plan hadbeen the estate cottages at 1-12 Shelbourne Road, the terraced crescent cottages in Raheny,and the Old Bailey Cottages in Howth, first protected under the 1980 Dublin DevelopmentPlan. However, this building category was somewhat extended under the protection list (List2) of the 1991 Dublin City Development Plan, examples being the stone cottages in thegrounds of the King's Inns and terraced estate cottages at Northumberland Road. Later, underthe 1999 Dublin City Development Plan, Farrelly's Cottages, vernacular stone cottages at

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 21:

23 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 14: What is worth conserving in the urban environment? Temporal shifts in cultural attitudes towards the built heritage in Ireland

214 Negussie

Finglas Bridge, were added to the Record of Protected Structures. Cottages listed forprotection have mainly comprised a small number of estate cottages such as those thathistorically formed part of the Pembroke Estate, a vast area in the south of Dublin developedby the Fitzwilliam family during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. However, numeroussingle-storey cottages exist in Dublin. In many cases they were built by philanthropic or semi-philanthropic organisations such as the Dublin Artizans' Dwelling Company during thenineteenth century (MacLaran, 1993). Although not designated for preservation, some ofthese have been afforded protection through development control by forming part ofresidential conservation areas. Figure 4 illustrates an example of Dublin's lost cottages. It wasphotographed in connection with a proposed slum clearance scheme by Dublin Corporationin 1933.

Figure 4: Holmes' cottages: earmarked for demolition in the 1930s due to a slum clearance schemeby Dublin Corporation (Old Dublin Society/Frank Murphy Collection, 1933).

A small number of mews buildings have also been designated for preservation in Dublin.In 1985 An Taisce reported an overall failure to consider mews and gardens as an integral partof the concept of a Georgian terrace, noting that while the situation in south-side Georgianareas was more fortunate, few original mews buildings had survived intact in the north-sideGeorgian areas (An Taisce, 1985). A mews building was for the first time listed forpreservation under the 1991 Development Plan; namely, at 83AHarcourt Street (List 1). Underthe 1999 Development Plan another two mews at 57 Adelaide Road (List 2) and 5 LeinsterStreet South (List 1) were listed for protection and preservation. Nevertheless, as noted byMcManus (2004) mews, including buildings and lanes, have benefited from protection throughdevelopment control in the 1991 and 1999 Dublin City Development plans.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 21:

23 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 15: What is worth conserving in the urban environment? Temporal shifts in cultural attitudes towards the built heritage in Ireland

Cultural attitudes towards the built heritage in Ireland 215

Twentieth-century built heritage: Art Deco and modern

Towards the end of the 1990s a growing concern for Art Deco and modern buildings wasalso expressed and manifested in the 1999 Dublin City Development Plan. Art Deco stylebuildings have been protected under both the 1991 and 1999 Dublin City Development Plans.However, it may be argued that a shift towards protection of these buildings is reflected to agreater extent in the 1999 Development Plan. The Art Deco style evolved during the 1920sand was adopted by Irish architects in the 1920s and 1930s (Rothery, 1991). One example isthe former Dublin Gas Company building in D'Olier Street (1928), which acquired List 2status in the 1991 Development Plan and was later upgraded to List 1 status in the 1999Development Plan. Another example is the Burton Chambers at 19-22 Dame Street, builtbetween 1928-30 (Figure 5), which merited List 2 protection under the 1991 and 1999development plans.

Figure 5: The Burton Chambers at 19-22 Dame Street in south central Dublin (Negussie, 2002).

Until recently, buildings from the twentieth century, modern buildings in particular, andquestions of how to approach their conservation, have received little attention, with theexception of special lobby groups such as the Irish branch of Docomomo, an internationalorganisation promoting modern architecture. Only during the second half of the 1990s wasconservation awareness beginning to be raised for modem structures, partly due to the overallenhancement in attitudes towards conservation and to a number of controversial buildingdemolition cases. For example, the illegal demolition of Archer's Garage in Dublin, a listedArt Deco style building dating from the late 1940s, was described as 'the biggest conservationissue in the last five years' by one respondent (Conservationist 1, 2000). As suggested by

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 21:

23 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 16: What is worth conserving in the urban environment? Temporal shifts in cultural attitudes towards the built heritage in Ireland

216 Negussie

Frank McDonald (2000) in the Irish Times it became an eye opener to the need for attentionand protection of twentieth century buildings:

It was the illicit demolition of Archer's garage on Fenian Street over the 1999 Junebank holiday weekend... that put a spotlight on the fate of important buildings fromthe 20th century. Just as the value of many fine Victorian buildings was not recog-nised until after 1950, we have been extraordinarily slow to acknowledge the breath-taking architectural legacy of the last century, which is why so few of its buildingsin Ireland have been listed as protected structures.

Nevertheless, the number of protected buildings dating from after the 1930s is very low.Archer's Garage (c. 1949) before it was demolished in 1999, first became protected in 1991as a List 2 building but was later upgraded to List 1 status in the 1999 Development Plan. TheCentral Bus Station in Store Street, Busaras (1944-53), designed by the internationallyrenowned Irish architect Michael Scott, became protected under List 2 in the 1991 and 1999development plans. Another example is the Carroll's building on Grand Parade (1962-4)which merited List 2 status under the 1999 Development Plan (Figure 6). Thus, concern hasso far mainly involved a limited number of modern icon buildings. These are now all referredto as protected structures.

Figure 6: The Carroll's building on Grand Parade, south city Dublin (Negussie, 2002).

As explained by one informant, in Dublin, 'the modern has been slow to come onboard,apart from set-pieces such as the bus station (Busaras) and Dublin Airport' due to a generallack of fine modern buildings (Policy Advisor 1, 2000). There has been a widespreadapprehension that many modem buildings from the 1960s and 1970s are of poor quality andgenerally disliked:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 21:

23 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 17: What is worth conserving in the urban environment? Temporal shifts in cultural attitudes towards the built heritage in Ireland

Cultural attitudes towards the built heritage in Ireland 217

The general perception is that the architecture in Dublin from the 1960s and 1970sis awful It was built cheap and nobody would be sad to see it go. There are a fewbuildings, but I don't think anyone is going to shed any tears. Some of MichaelScott's stuff is good modern architecture, but most of it is not. The Civic Offices, theESB and all the things that happened... There is very little value put on them. (Semi-State-Body Official 1, 2001)

Similarly, another interviewee explained: 'there would still be a significant resistance topromoting conservation of modern buildings, particularly if you think of people's concept ofheritage. I think more than anything else, the general public has quite a funny relationship tomodern movement buildings. There are a few exceptions to this but the general rule is thatpeople don't really perceive them...' (Policy Advisor 2,2000). Nevertheless, as explained bya senior planning officer, although one may question why it is important to conserve buildingsfrom the modern period, which are so often disliked, it is because they are representative ofa period of architecture that might otherwise disappear. In other words, 'it is a culturalargument, rather than an aesthetic argument' (Planner 2, 2000). Furthermore, anotherinformant described the newly developed concern for modern buildings as a 'strange culturalphenomenon' and a 'cultural acceleration':

The modern has suddenly become a big thing. It is regarded as cool to be interestedin modern buildings in Dublin, of which there are very few of good quality. A lot ofarchitects would be more concerned for the modern buildings than for the historicbuildings. Maybe they are right because there are so few. It is an interesting phe-nomenon that they have become fashionable. Primarily because architects alwaysget worked up about the modern tradition, because they are worried that their ownlimited creations would come under threat. They hate to see buildings of people whothey might have known themselves go. Architects may be horrified about demolitionof their own buildings. (Conservationist 1, 2000)

Towards a broader approach to conservation of the built heritage

In Dublin City, there has been an overall shift from a limited concern for the oldestelements of the built heritage, such as medieval built structures and Georgian architecturallandmark buildings. There has been a gradual shift towards concern for buildings from laterperiods, which may be described in the following order: from Georgian to Victorian andEdwardian buildings, then to the industrial heritage and finally to the recently awakenedconcern for twentieth century buildings, including art deco and modem. There has also been ashift towards a concern for streetscapes and a more area-based approach to conservation andthereby somewhat of a shift from exceptional architectural masterpieces towards the protectionof, for instance, domestic terraced houses. The conservation agenda has successivelydeveloped to cover the Georgian core of the inner city, first affording protection to buildingslocated in the more economically viable areas of the south inner city and then graduallyembracing Georgian buildings located in the north inner city. As observed by one informant:

There has been a remarkable change because only premier Georgian buildings wereconsidered worth conserving in 1967, whereas now there would be a growingappreciation for streetscapes. There has been a developing appreciation of theVictorian and it is only now that there is realisation that twentieth century-buildingsof quality should also be considered. There is now much more appreciation of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 21:

23 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 18: What is worth conserving in the urban environment? Temporal shifts in cultural attitudes towards the built heritage in Ireland

218 Negussie

better quality housing areas of the twentieth century but that is very much a recentdevelopment. The industrial building stock remains a great problem.

(Conservationist 2, 2000)

Nevertheless, in spite of these shifts in appreciation for the built heritage, a few pointsrequire attention in regard to scope of protected structures. The selection of buildings meritingprotection status to date in Dublin City is not based on a comprehensive survey. The reasonfor many buildings having been included for preservation listing in the past is the result oflobbying by" individuals, residents' associations and conservation bodies, often bysubmissions made by such groups during the review of the development plan. This hasresulted in inconsistency in selection procedures. For example, areas with strong andinformed residents' associations, especially in the south inner suburbs, often have greaternumbers of protected structures. Furthermore, there exist building categories from olderperiods that are underrepresented in the current Record of Protected Structures, e.g.vernacular buildings. Figure 7 illustrates an example of a vernacular building at 8-9 SussexTerrace, one of few such buildings listed for preservation. Cottages are anotherunderrepresented building category. Although there is no overall official strategy as to how toapproach conservation of the modern built heritage in terms of selection procedures, someindividual buildings have received public attention and have been listed for protection inrecent years.

It is important to recognise that there are different perspectives regarding what is worthyof conservation, e.g. cultural versus aesthetic perspectives. For example, a senior planningofficer made a distinction between the approach to conservation taken by architects and

Figure 7: Nos 8-9 Sussex Terrace: example of a vernacular building near Leeson Street, south cityDublin (Negussie, 2002).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 21:

23 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 19: What is worth conserving in the urban environment? Temporal shifts in cultural attitudes towards the built heritage in Ireland

Cultural attitudes towards the built heritage in Ireland 219

planners. It was suggested that planners would often take a broader approach to conservationcompared to architects:

Architects would go for well that is Joe Murphy's special design, it should be kept(and) it is very precious. It might be interesting enough and the planner would saythat is fine we 'II put that on. But they would also say there are a few buildings thatrepresented a period, they are fairly indifferent but we are not going to have manyof them if you blow them all away. (Planner 2, 2000)

Furthermore, the same informant suggested that the arguments for a wider view onconservation, which consider a range of different perspectives on what is worth conserving,have not been fully developed for Dublin City. Also, from a planning point of view it wassuggested that the ambition should be to develop a non-static conservation model for DublinCity based on a comprehensive conservation study with recording of all accumulated dataover the years:

It is about actual knowledge and knowledge needs sensitivity. Awareness allows youto do the right thing in broad terms, to actually stimulate imagination and creativi-ty as well in a sort of paradoxical way - to read the culture of your city, and to knowthe culture of your origins. That is my picture of conservation. I am not saying it isa great aesthetic trip, but it is an important bit of social history. If you don't havethat it is only the jewels that get kept. They are not really representative... Anythingthat is in planning should have that sense of context, history, correctness, incorrect-ness and opportunity. They are all isolated at the moment. I think this modern archi-tectural thing is saying that there is a nice jewel, mark out a ring around that...Fairly valid, but a little bit out of context.... Whereas when a planner, I hope, wouldcome in and a social historian, there is a meeting between physical and social.(Planner 2,2000)

Thus, what is yet to be realised is a conservation model which further brings in the socialand cultural dimensions of conservation. Since this research was carried out certaindevelopments have been made in the context of local authority policy. For example, DublinCity Council has adopted a Local Heritage Plan, 2000-2002, a long-term action plan for boththe archaeological and architectural heritage, as well as the natural environment. Theobjectives are to improve the heritage information base, to enhance communication betweenstakeholders, to raise heritage awareness, to promote best conservation practice and toimplement key projects (Dublin City Council, 2002). Consequently, a study wascommissioned to compile information on all building inventories undertaken in Dublin todate (Dublin City Council, 2003).

The Draft Dublin City Development Plan, 2005-2011 reflects potential for a movetowards a broader understanding of 'heritage', including the built heritage, archaeology andthe natural environment, seen as 'fundamental to the cultural identity of the city and thequality of life of its citizens'. A number of new features of the heritage section of the plan,formerly known as the 'conservation' section of the development plan, deserve attention. Inline with legislative reform, it is now the policy 'to include all structures considered to be ofspecial architectural, historical, archaeological, artistic, cultural, scientific, social or technicalinterest'. The objective is to maintain a database containing all relevant information on thebuilt heritage. It is, for the first time, the policy of Dublin City Council 'to protect thebuildings and features of industrial heritage in situ, and their related artefacts and plant where

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 21:

23 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 20: What is worth conserving in the urban environment? Temporal shifts in cultural attitudes towards the built heritage in Ireland

220 Negussie

appropriate'. Also, the policy is 'to review the Record of Protected Structures in relation toDublin's twentieth-century architecture to ensure that this aspect of the built heritage issuitably protected'. Another new feature is the policy 'to preserve historic place names andhistoric street names' and 'to ensure that all new street names and development names shallreflect local historical, heritage or cultural associations'. Greater emphasis is also placed onthe encouragement of uses compatible with the character of protected structures. With regardto area conservation, the draft plan stipulates that at least eight architectural conservationareas will be designated during the life span of the plan, as a response to new conservationlegislation, together with the provision of special policy for the protection of these. At thesame time, Dublin City Council seeks to maintain its policy to protect its old conservationareas which form part of zoning policy (Dublin City Council, 2004a).

While the policies in the Draft Dublin City Development Plan, 2005-2011 demonstratedevelopments in terms of scope of the built heritage, the drafting process has also seen a setback through the proposal to remove approximately 500 buildings from the Record ofProtected Structures {Dublin City Council, 2004b). This is partly due to a wish to de-list asmall number of buildings included in the Record of Protected Structures by error in the pastbecause listings have not been based on a comprehensive building inventory. However, forthe majority of the buildings concerned it is due to perceptions of the protection provisionsunder the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as being too rigid for some of Dublin'sVictorian built heritage and that the buildings concerned are not considered to be of uniquearchitectural heritage. It is suggested that protection through development control is sufficientfor such buildings. There is also a perception that the 'protected structure' status placesunreasonable burdens and costs on owners and that it can dimmish the value of a property.Concern has been raised that the proposal may have negative implications from aconservation point of view.

Conclusion

This paper explored the varying ranges of elements that have been considered worthy ofconservation in the urban environment. Although there has been a clear shift away from thedislike of Georgian and Victorian buildings due to them being symbols of colonialoppression, hostility towards this built legacy in the past has had negative implications forconservation. For a long time such anti-colonial sentiments resulted in a passive approachtowards the protection of 'British' architecture. While such anti-conservation sentimentsfaded since the 1970s, these contributed to it taking a long time for the awareness of theimportance of the built heritage to take roots in Ireland.

As seen above, built environments are shaped by changing ideas and values and areculturally constructed places. Also, value judgements as to what buildings are worthy ofconservation are not neutral or objective. There is a political dimension to decisions of whatto conserve in the urban environment. Conservation values also change over time. Thus, valuejudgements on what to conserve must constantly be re-assessed. It is important that the debateon conservation is not limited to a discussion on individual buildings and areas, but that itforms part of a culturally and politically conscious approach to the built heritage. Theundertaking of systematic building inventories is crucial in the identification and re-evaluation of the built heritage and the State plays a key role in stimulating public debate onconservation. What a society chooses to conserve forms part of broader systems constitutedof both political and cultural ideas and values. In Ireland, while there have been significant

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 21:

23 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 21: What is worth conserving in the urban environment? Temporal shifts in cultural attitudes towards the built heritage in Ireland

Cultural attitudes towards the built heritage in Ireland 221

improvements in the overall approach to conservation, especially in a legislative context andto some degree funding, there is a need for a conservation agenda which takes further intoaccount the cultural-political aspects of what society decides to conserve.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Dr Andrew MacLaran in the Geography Department ofTrinity College Dublin, who supervised the research on which this paper is based. Thanks arealso due to all the interviewees who kindly participated in lengthy interviews. Finally, theauthor gratefully acknowledges the Irish Research Council for the Humanities and SocialSciences.

Bibliography

An TAISCE (1967) Study of Amenity Planning Issues in Dublin and Dun Laoghaire. Dublin: An Taisce(National Trust for Ireland).

An TAISCE (1985) Georgian Dublin: Policy for Survival. Dublin: An Taisce Dublin City Association.ANDERSON, K. and GALE, F. (1992) Inventing Places: Studies in Cultural Geography. Melbourne:

Longman Cheshire Ltd.COUNCIL of EUROPE (1975) The Amsterdam Declaration. Amsterdam: Congress on the European

Architectural Heritage, 21-25 Oct.COUNCIL of EUROPE (1985) The Granada Convention (Convention for the Protection of the

Architectural Heritage of Europe). ETS No. 121. Granada: Second Conference of EuropeanMinisters responsible for the Architectural Heritage, 3 Oct.

DACG (DEPARTMENT of ARTS, CULTURE and the GAELTACHT) (1996) Strengthening theProtection of the Architectural Heritage. Dublin: Stationery Office.

DALY, M. (1998) The Growth of Victorian Dublin, In: Daly, M., Hearn, M. and Pearson, P. (eds)Dublin's Victorian Houses. Dublin: A.&A. Farmar, 1-57.

DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL (2002) Dublin City Heritage Plan. Dublin: Heritage Office, Dublin CityCouncil.

DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL (2003) Dublin City: Architectural Heritage Surveys. Dublin.www.dublincity.ie

DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL (2004a) Draft Development Plan. Dublin: City Council, www.dublincity.ieDUBLIN CITY COUNCIL (2004b) Manager's Report. Dublin: City Council. www.dublincity.ieDUBLIN CORPORATION (1971) Dublin Development Plan, 1971. Dublin: Dublin Corporation.DUBLIN CORPORATION (1980) Dublin City Development Plan; 1980. Dublin: Dublin Corporation.DUBLIN CORPORATION (1991) Dublin City Development Plan, 1991. Dublin: Dublin Corporation.DUBLIN CORPORATION (1999) Dublin City Development Plan, 1999. Dublin: Dublin Corporation.DÚCHAS (1999) National Inventory of Architectural Heritage. Unpublished report. Dublin: Dúchas.GIBNEY, A. (1999) Continuity and Change, In: Brown, T., Arthur, G and O'Doherty, M. (eds) Building

for Government: the Architecture of State Buildings. Dublin: Townhouse and Country in associa-tion with Office of Public Works, 17-22.

GRAHAM, B.J. (1994) Heritage Conservation and Revisionist Nationalism in Ireland, In: Ashworth,G.J. and Larkham, P.J. (eds) Building a New Heritage: Tourism, Culture and Identity in the NewEurope. London and New York: Routledge, 135-158.

HAYDEN, D. (1996) The Power of Place. Massachusetts: the MIT Press.ICOMOS (1964) The Venice Charter (International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of

Monuments and Sites). Venice: Second International Congress of Architects and Technicians ofHistoric Monuments, 25-31 May.

ICOMOS (1987) The Washington Charter (Charter for the Conservation of Historic Towns and UrbanAreas). Washington: ICOMOS General Assembly.

ICOMOS (1999) The Mexican Charter (Charter on the Built Vernacular Heritage). Mexico: ICOMOSGeneral Assembly.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 21:

23 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 22: What is worth conserving in the urban environment? Temporal shifts in cultural attitudes towards the built heritage in Ireland

222 Negussie

IRISH BUILDER & ENGINEER (1975) Comment, Irish Builder & Engineer, 117(2), 33.JACOBS, J. (1992) Cultures of the Past and Urban Transformation: The Spitalfields Market

Redevelopment in East London, In: Anderson, K, and Gale, F. (eds) Inventing Places: Studies inCultural Geography. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire Ltd, 194-211.

KEALY, L. (1997) Remembering and Forgetting: Building Conservation as an Essay on the Fate ofHistory, In: Becker, A., Oily, J. and Wang, W. (eds) Ireland (20th-century Architecture Series).Munich and New York: Prestel, 67-71.

KEARNS, G. and PHILO, C. (1993) Selling Places: the City as Cultural Capital, Past and Present.Oxford, New York, Seoul and Tokyo: Pergamon Press.

KNOX, P. (1987) The Social Production of the Built Environment: Architects, Architecture and thePost-modern City, Progress in Human Geography, VII (4), 354-377.

MacLARAN, A. (1993) Dublin: The Shaping of a Capital. London and New York: Belhaven Press.McDONALD, F. (1986) The Destruction of Dublin. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan.McDONALD (1989) Saving the City: How to Halt the Destruction of Dublin. Dublin: Tomar

Publishing.McDONALD, F. (2000) Artist Fights to Save Factory from Demolition, The Irish Times, November,

16th.McMANUS, P. (2000) Conservation, In: Johnston, R.J., Gregory, D., Pratt, G. and Watts, M. (eds)

Dictionary of Human Geography. 4 th ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 106-107.McMANUS, R. (2004) Windows on a Hidden World: Urban and Social Evolution as seen from the

Mews, Irish Geography, 37(1), 37-59.MULLALLY, P.A. (1980) Introduction, In: Nowlan, K.B., Robinson, N. and Rowan, A. (eds) Dublin's

Future: the European Challenge: a Conservation Report for An Taisce. London: Country Life, 1.NEGUSSIE, E. (2002) Urban Conservation in a Comparative Perspective: Dublin and Stockholm.

Unpublished thesis (PhD). Dublin: Trinity College Dublin.NEGUSSIE, E. (2003) The Evolution of Urban Conservation in Ireland: Evidence from Dublin City,

Journal of Irish Urban Studies, 2(2), 15-35.O'DOHERTY, M. (1999) Reviewing the Century, In: Brown, T., Arthur, G and O'Doherty, M. (eds)

Building for Government: the Architecture of State Buildings. Dublin: Townhouse and Country inassociation with Office of Public Works, 13-16.

PHELPS, A., ASHWORTH, G.J. and JOHANSSON, O.H. (eds) (2002) The Construction of the BuiltHeritage. Hampshire: Ashgate.

RELPH, E. (1987) The Modern Urban Landscape. London and Sydney: Croom Helm Ltd.ROTHERY, S. (1991) Ireland and the New Architecture: 1900-1940. Dublin: Lilliput Press.SCHOOL of ARCHITECTURE UCD (1996) Inventory of the Architectural and Industrial

Archaeological Heritage: Vol. 1. Dublin: School of Architecture and University College Dublin.SLATER, T.R. (1997) Conserving Europe's Historic Towns: Character, Managerialism and

Representation, Built Environment, 23(2), 144-155.TUNBRIDGE, J.E. (1984) Whose Heritage to Conserve? Cross-Cultural Reflections on Political

Dominance and Urban Heritage Conservation, Canadian Heritage, XXVIII (28), 171-80.TUNBRIDGE, J.E. (1994) Whose Heritage? Global Problem, European Nightmare, In: Ashworth, G.J.

and Larkham, P.J. (eds) Building a New Heritage: Tourism, Culture and Identity in the NewEurope. London and New York: Routledge, 123-134.

WHELAN, Y. (2001) Monuments, Power and Contested Space: the Iconography of Sackville Street(O'Connell Street) before Independence (1922), Irish Geography, 34(1), 11-33.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 21:

23 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014