The term integrated conservation first entered the lexicon of urban heritage in the 1975 Council of Europe European Charter, recognising that the future of the architectural heritage depends on the weight attached to it within the framework of urban and regional planning. Since then, the agendas of sustainability, sustainable development and climate change have entered the debate, and various attempts have been made to re-position urban heritage from a specialist to a mainstream activity in the European context. In ‘The Geography of Urban Heritage’, we argued that the quantum of urban heritage recognised and appreciated today underscores a level of responsibility for the maintenance and processes of continuity whose realisation is beyond the scope and capacity of a specialist field. Additionally, that the complementary values of community, heritage, resource and usefulness, harnessed to common purpose, afford a potent combination for responding to the challenge. That article promoted the thesis that for urban conservation to become a mainstream activity, heritage professionals need to nurture relationships centrally within the broad discipline of geography – the core discipline of urban planning; and reciprocally, geographers need to recognise the vital role of urban heritage beyond a limited perception of its compass. The 2010 European Union Toledo Declaration acknowledged the importance of urban heritage, and defined the multiple dimensions of sustainability as economic, social, environmental, cultural and governance. Governance at the municipal level is the key to integrated urban planning policy and practice. This article explores current initiatives in the field and proposes directions for further research and implementation.

This article reflects on the extent to which the commitment set out under Article 5 of the 1972 UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage ‘to adopt a general policy which aims to give the cultural and natural heritage a function in the life of the community and to integrate the protection of that heritage into comprehensive planning programmes’, is reflected in the ambition and interpretation of the 2011 UNESCO Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape. It questions the degree to which that Recommendation’s evolution and formulation addresses the long-standing failure to interpret and position the broad spectrum of values of urban heritage within the mainstream of urban planning policy and practice. In the context of today’s over-arching global priorities, this article concludes by advocating greater engagement with United Nations agendas, including the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals.

In the context of the broadening understanding of urban heritage, including the 2011 UNESCO Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape and related United Nations agendas such as the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals and the New Urban Agenda, this article questions the relevance of limited-focused impact assessments as a tool for the holistic management of complex urban sites in the 21st century. The article identifies pitfalls in the use of such assessments, illustrating this principally with two cases in which retrospective assessments were undertaken post-inscription in an attempt to address conflicting interests: the visual impact study for Dresden Elbe Valley, inscribed on the World Heritage List in 2004 and delisted in 2009; and the three impact assessments for Liverpool Maritime Mercantile World Heritage Site, also inscribed in 2004, and placed on the List of World Heritage in Danger continuously since 2012. The article identifies critical missing elements that are inherent in discrete assessments, and provides indicators for practical tools with relevant applicability.

Against the backdrop of recent crises, such as the Covid-19 pandemic and various armed conflicts, this chapter highlights the unique vulnerabilities of urban heritage and how these have been exacerbated by an over-simplified construction and commodification of heritage in the official discourse. The chapter reflects on issues and contentions about the definition of urban heritage and the prevailing focus on listing sites and monumental values, highlighting the frequent contrast between community narratives and outstanding universal value. Aside from challenges to its existence, urban heritage must also find ways to mediate between environmental, social, and economic pressures that World Heritage status imposes and the over-riding principles and objectives of the SDGs and other ambitious policies.This chapter proposes that addressing all these challenges is linked to a shift toward an inclusive human- and environment-focused definition of urban heritage, which leaves room for community statements of values, not just OUV. This chapter presents the case for recognizing urban heritage’s compendium of values to consolidate its sustainability and spread and minimise the risks. In short, it is a call to move away from heritage orthodoxy and toward sustainable urban heritage.

(2014). Materan contradictions: architecture, preservation and politics. Journal of Architectural Conservation: Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 68-69.