Home ›

Vilnius old town renewal program

Models Project Information
Proj ID: 

Model11

Proj Subject: 

An integrated approach to conservation-led urban regeneration

Proj Name: 

Vilnius old town renewal program

Proj Purpose: 

To safeguard historic urban architecture and revitalize the inner-city district

Proj Time Frame: 

 

1995 to the present (ongoing)

·   1994 – Vilnius Historic Center was inscribed in the UNESCO World Heritage list.

·   1995-1996 – The Vilnius Revitalization Strategy was drawn up.

·   1997 – The Strategy was approved by the municipality and the City Council then presented at a conference for potential donors and investors (both local and foreign). At the conference, the Lithuanian national government, UNESCO, and UNDP pledged their support. Shortly thereafter, UNESCO/WHC and ICCROM/ITUC began a series of training workshops for heritage managers and civil servants in Vilnius.

·   1998 – The Old Town Renewal Agency (OTRA) was established and state funds were allocated to infrastructure improvements within the Old Town. The first Action Plan was implemented as well in this year.

·   1999 – OTRA, UNESCO/WHC and UNDP set up a Technical Assistance Program to increase community involvement. OTRA undertook feasibility studies for pilot projects, offered seminars and published pamphlets designed to (1) inform residents how they might participate in the regeneration efforts and (2) instruct potential investors on investment opportunities within the Old Town.

·   2000 – Vilnius City Board approved the proposed rules for public-private partnership (PPP) projects. Consequently, private properties began to be renovated under this financing scheme. In the same year, OTRA established the Old Town Information Center, providing training sessions to schoolchildren, investors, homeowners and other members of the local community in an attempt to raise public awareness about heritage values.

·   2001-2010 – In addition to ongoing awareness-raising activities, OTRA implemented subprograms that focused on protecting a single, related aspect of Vilnius’ cultural heritage:

o   (2002) The Lost Vilnius Program, which safeguards the authenticity of heritage architecture and protects fine art by preserving architectural details (e.g., wall paintings).

o   (2003) The Ethnographic and Fine Crafts and Fairs Program which seeks to help traditional crafts flourish by (1) leasing government-owned property to crafts- and tradesmen for use as galleries or workshops and (2) maintaining a portion of the Old Town (i.e., Tymo Quarter) as a craft center. A Fine Crafts Association was created in 2006 to coordinate projects and seek funding opportunities.

o   (2005) The Preservation of Traditional Wooden Architecture of Vilnius City Project which specifically targets wooden buildings for repair.

(2009) The Historic Vilnius Organs Project which builds on previous research and restoration work on A.G. Casparini’s organ in the Church of the Holy Spirit in Vilnius Old Town.

Proj Method & Activities: 

(1) Strategic planning and regular monitoring
       a) Old Town Revitalization Strategy – The inclusion of Vilnius in the UNESCO World Heritage list in 1994 highlighted the need for a strategy protecting the site[i] and so a team of Lithuanian, Danish, and Scottish consultants was commissioned to develop a strategy for the Old Town. The team held extensive consultations with local and international stakeholders, looked at case studies of urban regeneration in historic cities[ii], and assessed issues such as: the property ownership regime in Vilnius, laws and administrative procedures for protecting architectural heritage, the management of local monuments and historic buildings, existing investment practices, and attitudes towards the current state of the area, its future development and the concerns of people living and working in the Old Town. The Strategy then proposed revitalization by combining preservation efforts with development concerns, recommending that the city attract investment by matching public funds with private contributions, engaging local residents and entrepreneurs in the plans for renewal, and encouraging a mix of uses for the structures within the historic core. The Strategy also made recommendations for funding mechanisms that could support the Program[iii] and called for the creation of a body that would coordinate with the partners and implement plans.

b) Annual Action Plans – Every year, OTRA drafts an Action Plan which it submits to the Supervision Council and the City Board for approval. The plan is guided by the broad principles stated in the Revitalization Strategy and is influenced by the current state of the urban landscape (which derives from OTRA’s documentation of restoration projects and area improvement schemes in the Old Town as well as approved applications for PPP renovation projects) and annual impact assessments of the Program (which OTRA prepares by culling feedback from the public sector and special-interest groups).

c) Other planning documents and related activities – The visual integrity of the urban fabric is maintained by activities that are not directly part of the Old Town Renewal Program. Because of development pressures, in 2002 the City Board created a model of the city of Vilnius using three-dimensional geographic information system modeling technology (3D GIS). The 3D model allows the Council to analyze spatial relationships between existing structures and proposed constructions. Building designs are grafted onto the model and presented to the Architecture and Urban Planning Council of Experts and the City Council for approval before permits can be issued. In 2006, the municipality and the state designated two zones within the city where investors could construct buildings taller than 35 meters in height. These restrictions were incorporated into the Vilnius City Master Plan the following year.

The Baltic Inter-SAVE project which ran from 2000 to 2001 was an initiative recommended by the Revitalization Strategy. Instead of OTRA, the Lithuanian Ministry of Environment and Energy was made responsible and the project was managed by Byfornyelse Danmark and funded by the Ministry, and the Danish Environmental Protection Agency, and the Danish Co-operation for Environment in Eastern Europe. The aim of the Inter-SAVE project (International Survey of Architectural Values in the Environment) was to create a database of condition reports for heritage houses by assessing their architectural, cultural, environmental and authenticity value. The project was completed but never included in the records maintained by OTRA’s Old Town Information Center.

(2) Creating an environment that encourages protection of heritage architecture through:

(a) A coordinating body – OTRA was established to liaise between the public and private sectors and to help implement the Revitalization Strategy. It is a private, non-profit organization separate from the state and municipality, yet dependent on public funds for its operation. The agency is accountable to a Supervision Council chaired jointly by the City Mayor and the Minister of Culture, and comprised of 15-20 representatives from the state, the municipality, local businesses and community groups. OTRA’s main tasks are: to build consensus, attract investments sympathetic to the cause of conservation, and act as a storehouse for information about the Renewal Program and restoration in general.

To amass community support for the regeneration, OTRA holds public meetings discussing with residents the financing opportunities available to homeowners’ associations and advising residents how to minimize crime, increase safety and contribute to infrastructure improvements within the Old Town. In addition, OTRA brings together and offers consultancy services to property owners and potential investors, runs activities for the youth (e.g., museum excursions, summer training camps, craft demonstrations), prepares seminars giving technical advice to homeowners and contractors, publishes brochures and other informational material, and maintains a website. OTRA also facilitates renovation work in the Old Town by accepting applications for PPP repairs/improvements, checking that the necessary accompanying documents are in order, informing applicants of the decision of the Working Group and the Vilnius City Board which, if favorable, means that the applicant’s property will be included in the Action Plan for the coming year.  

(b) Streamlined legal and administrative requirements – The Revitalization Strategy recommended simplifying the approval process for conservation-related works that, by law, required multiple applications be filed with separate offices in the municipal government. Investors working with historic buildings in the 1990s often resorted to extra-legal measures to circumvent the process. Furthermore, overlapping responsibilities between the state and municipality gave rise to uncertainty over which had final authority over historic structures in the Old Town, offering little incentive for developers to invest in repairing and reusing historic buildings.

Research undertaken by the team that prepared the Revitalization Strategy, seminars, information dissemination campaigns and OTRA’s work of facilitating between developers, property owners and relevant government agencies made it clear that policies needed to be revisited and revised to remove these barriers. The legal framework improved slightly when, starting in 2001, only the municipality was authorized to issue building permits for the Old Town. However, despite the fact that new laws and bylaws have been produced after 1994, much work still needs to be done to consolidate the policies concerning heritage protection.

(3) Encouraging partnerships

a) Between the public and private sector – The Revitalization Strategy envisaged stimulating private sector investment in the Old Town through public-private partnerships (PPP). But investment was unappealing to developers and private individuals because of the dilapidated state of historic houses and public spaces in the early to mid 90s, poor living conditions in the inner city, the prevailing negative perception of the area, the disincentives presented by ambiguous legal policies, and lack of trust in the recently decentralized government among investors and residents alike. To get the program started, revitalization required initial pump-priming from government funds. Vilnius received this in 1998 when the national government spent approximately US$ 5.6 mil to repaint facades, repair pavements, and restore street lighting to their traditional, historic designs. This show of commitment boosted investors’ confidence and spurred private investment in the area. Developers poured money into adaptive reuse of larger heritage buildings and ground-floor conversions for commercial use, while residents participated in the Program by refurbishing their own properties. Thereafter, government spending mainly targeted rehabilitating public space: building exteriors, roofs visible from the public thoroughfare, streets, public squares, parks and courtyards, streetlights, and sewage. Only a portion of the public spend has been applied to financing the renovation of private properties through the PPP scheme.

Under PPP, homeowners’ associations are eligible to apply for grant aid for repairs to roofs, facades, yards and balconies in private homes on the condition that applicants finance the remainder of the costs. Public funds allocated to the Renewal Program can reimburse homeowners for as much as 50% of the amount spent to upgrade street-facing building exteriors, building surrounds, and roofs; and up to 40% for the cost of repairs to yards and landscaping. Criteria considered for the grant include: the significance of the property, the extent of repair required, its current function, who owns the property, the capacity of the applicant to bear costs not covered by the grant and to see the repairs through to completion as well as their commitment to maintaining the property and safeguarding its heritage value after restoration.

b) With international agencies – From the initial planning stages of the Revitalization Strategy until the present round of subprograms and projects, the Renewal Program has always promoted working with other organizations. The Program has received financial support and technical advice from international organizations such as UNESCO-WHC, ICCROM, UNDP, World Bank, as well as the governments of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden (through SIDA - Swedish International Cooperation Agency) and from urban planners from other countries (e.g., Consortium Byfornyelse Danmark and the Edinburgh Old Town Renewal Trust). OTRA itself has participated in projects funded by EU Structural Funds and the EU Research Framework, sharing Vilnius’ experience of the Renewal Program with other countries and learning from lessons learned by cities undergoing their own regeneration.


 

 

[i] The Strategy was commissioned by the Lithuanian Prime Minister and the Mayor of Vilnius. The initiative received support from UNESCO, the World Bank, Edinburgh Old Town Renewal Trust, and the Danish and Norwegian governments, which later influenced the composition of the team that prepared the written document. [ii] The urban renewal models studied offered guidance as to the type of organizations/agencies and financing schemes that would work in Vilnius. The team looked at state-organized and -funded agencies, partnerships between municipal governments and private developers, and agencies bridging local communities with the public sector or private developers: Tyne and Wear Development Corporation in England (TWDC); Edinburgh Development and Investment (EDI), Edinburgh Old Town Renewal Trust (EOTRT), the National Trust for Scotland’s Revolving Fund and ASSIST Architects Glasgow in Scotland; Temple Bar Properties (TBP) in Ireland; The Urban Renewal Company (BD) in Denmark; Société Immobiliere du Patrimoine Architectural de Montréal (SIMPA) in Canada; and Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foundation (PHLF) in the US. The Kazimierz project in Poland and the Bucharest Old Town renewal in Romania were also studied for the parallels that could be drawn between their context and that of Lithuania.
[iii]. A study conducted in 1994 projected that it would cost the government US$ 525 million to restore buildings in the Old Town to an acceptable standard (computed at a rate of US$ 630 per square meter of floor space). But by 1995, public investments had reached only a total of US$ 4.5 million with a very slight, incremental shift made within the one-year period. The team determined that for the Program to succeed, alternative sources of funding would be needed.

Models Coverage
Location: 

 

Vilnius, Lithuania is a city founded in the 1300s with settlements dating back as far as the 5th and 6th centuries. It is famed as a Baroque city with medieval streetscapes although significant examples of Gothic, Renaissance, Classical and Neoclassical urban architecture abound in the historic center as well.

The Old Town covers an area of 359 hectares and has a population of more than 20,000 residents (3% of the total population of Vilnius; figures as of 2001). Due to fires in 1471 and 1610, devastation during World War 2 that affected half of the historic district, and neglect during the years of Soviet occupation, many of the historic buildings (i.e., homes, churches, monasteries) were badly in need of restoration by the time the Old Town was inscribed in the World Heritage List. Conservation and revitalization efforts prior to 1994 (from 1956-1958, 1969-1974, and 1988-1992) proved unsuccessful. Inadequate state funding meant that restoration work was restricted to only the most visible monuments and focused largely on individual properties rather than wholesale improvements to the urban landscape.

When Lithuania regained its independence in 1990, the country underwent a period of transition – to private ownership of land, a free market economy, and decentralized local governance. First, housing in Vilnius (accounting for more than half of the land use in the area) was transferred from state ownership to private property. However, shared, common spaces within apartment buildings remained under the ownership of the State until they could be transferred to homeowners’ associations. Consequently, responsibility for their maintenance remained with the public sector. Second, the changing political regime granted greater power to local government units. However, municipal agencies had yet to prove their authority under the fledgling republic to gain the confidence of local communities and potential investors. Third, transfer to a market economy bought with it pressure to develop the Old Town. Unfortunately, unfavorable lending conditions from banks and legal and procedural barriers to developing historic buildings restricted their appeal. A few years into the decade, investors began to contribute to repairs in the Old Town but the improvements were dispersed and lacked enough of a critical mass to have a positive effect on the market value of properties. Poor infrastructure, unemployment rates that had begun to rise in the 1980s with the closure of factories and plants in the area, and declining population numbers colored the perception of people living and working in the Old Town. These were the conditions facing Vilnius when it began the Renewal Program in the mid 1990s.

Models Financing
Funding Agency: 

 When the Renewal Program was first conceived, it was envisioned that financial support would come from a Vilnius Old Town Rehabilitation Fund set up for the purpose. However, although the Fund was established, it received neither the funding nor the authority to act on behalf of the state or the municipality and eventually closed down. Instead, the Program has relied on public spending, contributions from private investment (e.g., local homeowners, businesspeople) and grants from international organizations and foreign bodies. 

From 1998-2002,Vilnius Old Town received US$ 5.6 million in budgetary allocations from the state (through the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Finance’s Housing and Urban Development Foundation) for improvements to infrastructure. It also received support to a lesser extent, from the Lithuanian Monuments Restoration Institute and the Lithuanian Cultural Support Fund. From 1998-2005, it received around US$ 4.5 million from Vilnius Municipality which, since 2003, has provided the main financial support for the Program. From 2000-2005, public funds were matched by US$ 200,000 of private investments under the PPP scheme. The Program also received US$ 73,000 from UNESCO and US$ 50,000 from UNDP for the Technical Assistance project begun in 1999.

Models Organization
Mod Org Name: 

OTRA

Org Project Director: 

OTRA Director: Gediminas Rutkauskas

Org Resources: 

OTRA is a small, not-for-profit organization with permanent staff, its own office within the Old Town, and an operating budget sourced from municipal funds.
(Note: The revitalization of Vilnius Old Town cannot be attributed to a single institution. The successes of the Program were possible because of the combined efforts of various levels of government, partner agencies and the local business community and residents. But as the coordinating agency for the regeneration and a repository of information, OTRA is well placed to answer questions about the Program.)

Org Mailing Address: 

Stiklių Str. 4
01131 Vilnius, Lithuania

Mr. Gediminas Rutkauskas
tel.: +370 5 212 7723
fax: +370 5 262 9646

otra@lithill.lt   

otra@takas.lt

website: www.vsaa.lt

Models Outcome
Materials: 

 

(1)  OTRA publications[i] from 1999-2006 (mostly in the form of pamphlets and brochures), annual impact assessment reports and Action Plans.

(2)  A database of restoration projects completed and laws relevant to heritage properties (Note: this is separate from the Inter-SAVE database created in 2001).

(3)  Lectures, meetings, public consultations, seminars and workshops organized by OTRA and partner organizations from 2000-2010.

(4)  An increase in the number of homeowners’ associations within the Old Town – from 14 associations in 1998, to 96 by 2005.

(5)  Physical improvements to public areas and residential buildings under the PPP scheme.

The number of PPP contracts entered into varies from year to year with less than half of the applications being approved in any given year. In 2000, 10 PPP projects were awarded. In 2001, there were 11 projects approved; in 2002, 15 projects; in 2003, 7 projects; in 2004, 16 projects; in 2004, 16 projects; in 2005, 6 projects; in 2006, 3 projects; in 2007, 10 projects (although these were not undertaken until the following year); and in 2008, no projects were approved for lack of public funds.

By 2008, around 70 facades, roofs, balconies, and private yards had been refurbished, more than 30 streets repaved and lit, 12 monuments (e.g., churches, towers, bridges) embellished with decorative lighting, and 10 architectural details (e.g., murals, city wall and gates, details on Churches and objects within) conserved.

 

[i]List of publications: Vilnius – World Heritage Site (1999) published with support from UNESCO; How to take part in the Vilnius Old Town Revitalisation Program I (2000) published with support from UNDP; Vilnius Old Town Revitalisation Strategy Implementation: Co-operation, Results, Vision (2000) published with support from Vilnius Municipality; How to take part in the Vilnius Old Town Revitalisation Program. Preservation of Heritage Values II (2001) published with support from UNDP; Investors' Guidelines (2001) published with support from UNESCO; Conservation Guidelines (2002) published with support from UNESCO; 9 Main Rules for the Maintenance of Historic Buildings (2002) published with support from Vilnius Municipality; Vilnius Old Town Revitalisation 1998 – 2003 (2003) published with support from Vilnius Municipality; The Defensive Wall of Vilnius (2003) published with support from Vilnius Municipality; Preservation of Authentic Elements of Built Fabric of Vilnius Old Town: Entrance Gates, Doors and Windows (2004) published with support from UNDP; Program of Study Tours for Youth (2004) published with support from UNDP; Ethnographic and Fine Crafts and Fairs Program (2005) published with support from Vilnius Municipality; Revitalisation of the Organ at the Holy Spirit Church in Vilnius (2006) published with support from various sponsors.

Resource Location: 

(1) and (2) can be found in The Old Town Information Center.

Models Evaluation
Status: 

 

The revitalization of Vilnius Old Town is considered a case study of good practice in urban management planning and regeneration. Through OTRA, Vilnius participates in networks of European cities that have had experience in revitalizing their historic centers and who share their experiences in exchange programs and lecture series. It joined ENSURE (Exchange Network for Sustainable Urban Revitalisation Experience) in 2000, ENTRUST (Empowering Neighbourhoods through Recourse and Synergies with Trade) in 2002, and URBACT HerO[i] (Heritage as Opportunity: Sustainable Management Strategies for Vital Historic Urban Landscapes) and EuroCities in 2010. Vilnius is upheld by ICCROM as the management model for the Eastern European region and has received recognition from the Organization of World Heritage Cities (OVPM).

 

The Revitalization Strategy envisaged creating an agency with a broad mandate and the authority to engage in all the activities necessary to implement the Program (e.g., decision making on behalf of the municipality and the state, entering into contracts for the state, managing public-private funds). However, OTRA found its niche in the twin roles of coordination and education and has committed its resources toward these ends rather than toward acting as a developer for the public interest. In the last two years especially, the agency focused its awareness-raising efforts on the local youth. OTRA, which was originally intended to be in operation for only five years, has since continued because of the community’s need for the services it offers.

In 2004, the Lithuanian Cultural Heritage Commission created the Vilnius Old Town Senate to provide a forum to discuss issues that could impact on the Old Town. Like OTRA, the Senate is intended to help coordinate the concerns of the community and the public sector but is a wholly separate body from OTRA.

The municipality is currently exploring options for mass public transportation that will lessen the volume of vehicular traffic within the Old Town.


[i] The list of HerO partners includes Regensberg, Germany; Graz, Austria; Naples, Italy; Sighisoara, Romania; Liverpool, UK; Lublin, Poland; Poitiers, France; and Valletta, Malta.

Selection Criteria & Results of Initiative: 

 

Urban regeneration has brought many changes. Since 2000, there have been more catering, retail, leisure, and residential options (providing both long-term and temporary accommodations) in the Old Town. A substantial number of properties have been converted into hotels, offices, or subdivided into apartments. The Program has improved the appearance of the Old Town by encouraging renovation work and has contributed to raising the profile of the district as a destination for tourists and visitors and an attractive residential neighborhood. Additionally, it has helped improve living conditions for residents (as a result of public investment in infrastructure) and aided in increasing the market value of apartments and retail spaces in the district. By the late 1990s, properties in Vilnius Old Town were among the most expensive in Lithuania – a consequence of the development boom that followed the move away from a Soviet planned economy, and one which the Program helped facilitate by raising investors’ confidence in the area.

 

Some measure of gentrification has taken place in the inner-city district, changing the demographic of the local community. At the turn of the 21st century, older, lower-income residents who had lived in the Old Town for decades welcomed foreigners and Lithuania’s nouveau riche (i.e., young urban professionals, businessmen) among the ranks of historic property owners. Surveys of residents’ attitudes to the Old Town in the mid 1990s showed a clear lack of confidence in the security and development prospects of the area, and evidenced a desire among many to move out of the district. Annual impact assessments started in 1999 show that belief in the benefits of living in the Old Town has built up over the years. Renovations post-1998, undertaken by residents old and new, are increasingly showing greater sensitivity to the value of heritage. Care is taken to ensure that cables are hidden behind facades, that even paint on the exteriors of houses is meticulously conserved and that repairs are not just cosmetic but also address the structural foundations of homes. These changes did not happen overnight but took place gradually.

 

One of the major challenges faced by the Program at the onset was the perception that conservation was the sole responsibility of the state. This attitude, and the fact that many portions of buildings remained in the ownership of the state even after independence, helped explain the state of dilapidation in the Old Town. The availability of PPP financing and OTRA’s steady stream of information campaigns to market the scheme and make sure the information was readily available and accessible to stakeholders (i.e., potential investors, residents who had yet to organize) induced residents to create homeowner associations. With the establishment of homeowner associations, ownership over common space within a building or complex of buildings – and responsibility for its maintenance – transferred from the municipality to the residents. Additional support in the way of sessions teaching contractors and residents how to conserve their properties and advice given during their application for PPP contracts helped gain community support for the Program. It has been said that engaging the community in revitalization is one of the main achievements wrought by OTRA and the 1999 Technical Assistance project.

 

Of course, the Renewal Program has not gone unchallenged. Experts in conservation have criticized some repair works for detracting from the authenticity value of properties because of the use of synthetic paint, the choice of color for the facade, the use of cement rather than lime mortar, and plaster work that is of a pattern not in-keeping with the traditional texture of historic houses. Politics delayed the creation of OTRA and controversy surrounded the selection of its first director[i]. Because of its innovative nature – as an independent body with access to government funds but not subject to their control and instead answerable to a multisectoral advisory council – OTRA has experienced some difficulty in dealing with national and municipal agencies, rendering it at times ineffectual as a mediator between the government and the local community. OTRA’s response to this limitation has been to focus on its work of facilitating PPP applications, collating data for the Old Town Information Centre and seeking avenues for international collaboration. Regardless, Vilnius remains a successful example of the integrated approach to urban planning – one that manages to encourage conservation though not at the expense of development; that highlights the importance of collaboration; and shows how a Program’s success or failure depends on its ability to influence local perception and attitudes.


[i] See comments made by WHC Consultant Michel Lincourt in his 1998 mission report to the UNESCO World Heritage Centre.

Applicability to Philippine Setting: 

 

As a case study in urban management, Vilnius exemplifies the current trend in town planning as promoted by international bodies like UNESCO and the EU. Regeneration endeavors and town planning in Europe from the mid-1900s to early 21st-century placed great emphasis on culture- and tourism-oriented use, encouraging the establishment of museums, hotels and government institutions in historic districts. It has been argued that this “museumified approach” to conservation does not create dynamic cities nor stem the tide of gentrification that often accompanies the revitalization of historic districts (Rodwell 2007; Tiesdell, Oc, and Heath 1996)[i]. Without a doubt, the post-Soviet Eastern European context of Vilnius is far removed from the sociopolitical and economic conditions in which heritage is protected in the Philippines. However, there are many important lessons to be learned from the Lithuanian experience.

In the 1990s the newly created Lithuanian republic and, by extension its government agencies, needed to gain citizens’ trust. They set about this task by being transparent in their dealings with the local community. Representatives of homeowners’ associations were welcome to attend meetings of the OTRA Working Group and Supervision Council when their applications for a PPP contract were discussed. And when the City Board’s decision was handed down, these were publicized and explained by OTRA to the applicants. Willingness to keep residents informed at all stages of their application won confidence in the Program and in the municipal authorities.

Another learning that can be gleaned from the Renewal Program is the importance of obtaining community buy-in on a project, even one with an avowed public benefit. Residents of the Old Town today are quite active in public discussions about what is happening in the area. Local NGOs, special-interest groups and homeowners’ associations take their role as stakeholder seriously, voicing their opinions about proposed constructions, private investors and the municipality’s plans for the town. And their opinions are heard across various forms of media. When the Program initially began, they were not heavily invested in the outcome. But in amassing support for projects, OTRA has empowered the local community. By marketing investment opportunities to investors and resident beneficiaries, by actively promoting the advantages of participation in public meetings and lectures, by offering conservation advice and discussing financing options with interested individuals, and by distributing questionnaires and constantly collecting feedback about how the Program is doing, OTRA has directed community concerns and helped people realize how essential the historic landscape is in defining the character of the place and its people. In turn, the community’s support has strengthened the authorities’ stance against excessive, unsympathetic development.

The practice of conducting feasibility studies and drafting management plans for historic cities in the Philippines has to be encouraged even among those that have not attained World Heritage status. Although plans in and of themselves are not a panacea, going through the process of preparing a plan can (a) consolidate and guide the efforts of independent organizations working to fulfill their own missions, (b) provide a framework for dealing with plans for developing the area, and (c) bring together stakeholders and build consensus through consultations over their differing visions for the district. When completed, feasibility studies and strategic plans can be compelling tools in inviting attention to the cause of conservation and attracting funding.


[i] Rodwell argues that mixed-use cities that encourage the development of residential, commercial, leisure and cultural activities as part of the regeneration effort produce more vibrant districts. He contends that having a residential community within the area – preferably retaining the original local residents – keeps the city thriving and alive at different hours of the day, creates a need for other services, attracts commercial enterprise and generates local business.

Possible Benefits: 

 

This model demonstrates the benefits of a change in attitude towards conservation. By shifting its gaze away from protecting individual monuments and significant heritage buildings and instead focusing on the urban quarter as a whole, the Program was able to consider the practical purposes to which conserved buildings could be applied. It has transformed the Old Town into a dynamic space that can be used by both visitors and locals alike. The Program succeeded in part because it was not purely consumed with the aesthetic significance of architecture but was equally concerned with the role that the built environment plays in the life of a community.

Conservation should work toward the ideal of managing change sensitively rather than merely preserving the past as it were, frozen in time. Examples of retail-, housing- and culture-led regeneration across Europe show that first, heritage concerns are not opposed to those of development or developers and second, that economic and sociocultural benefits to local residents and the business community need not be had at the expense of conservation.

In recent decades heritage has moved away from public sector care – which is preservationist in orientation – towards market place management, which is more adaptive to change. Conservation is no longer the sole responsibility of governments but rather requires the involvement of the private sector as well as the voluntary/third sector. Although safeguarding the architectural heritage is easier when policies are in place, promulgating laws and peopling government agencies with conservation-minded bureaucrats trained in heritage management is only one side of the equation. Safeguarding heritage demands as well the commitment of architects and urban planners, private developers and local entrepreneurs, historic preservation groups, experts in conservation and community organizing, people with experience in finance, property development and law, homeowners and tenants who care for their neighborhood, and many others. Partnerships between the sectors and even among organizations within the same sector are increasingly looked to as alternative means to fund conservation and implement heritage projects.[i] With funding being combined from different sources, less risk is assumed by each investor, making investment a more attractive proposition. Moreover, partnerships allow for the sharing of resources, recognizing the fact that no single organization (government or otherwise) has all the finances, management experience and technical expertise required for conserving heritage. As Vilnius’ Revitalization Strategy proposes: “public authorities must provide leadership, a supportive legislative framework and financial pump-priming; the private sector, entrepreneurial skills and capital.” Public investment can provide the impetus for investing in the built environment and engage in projects that show early proof of the commercial viablility of working with historic buildings. Once private investment is attracted, the returns on investment can take many forms: increasing confidence in the area, enhancing community pride, promoting local enterprise and creating employment, building the skills and capabilities of the local community, enlarging the base of local consumers with spending power, physically improving the environment, and heightening appreciation for the value of heritage.


[i] For a comprehensive discussion of funding mechanisms and sample case studies, see Pickard’s Funding the Architectural Heritage (also accessible in PDF format at book.coe.int/ftp/3255.pdf).