Heritage is not something that must not be changed

Experts of the Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands Jean-Paul Corten, coordinator of the program Heritage and Space, and Jon van Rooijen, consultant on the development of walled historic towns, told us about the Dutch approach to redevelopment, preservation of cultural heritage, and adaptation of old buildings.

– Let’s start with an easy one, what are the advantages of redevelopment compared to new construction? To demolish and rebuild is often cheaper than to reconstruct.

Jean-Paul Corten: It depends on how you count your money. If you focus on the money and the cost of new construction, then yes, it may be cheaper to demolish the old building and build a new one. However, there is an interesting study by the American expert group Preservation Green Lab. It shows that in terms of sustainability it is much more efficient to use the existing building than to build a new one. It certainly depends on each particular case, but the general message is quite sound: the most environmentally friendly building is one that has already been built. They substantiated this idea with numbers. In general, if you look at the cost of resources and energy, a new building will pay off only in 70-80 years. Their mathematical calculations are very convincing. It all depends on how you count. Of course, we are not saying one must preserve absolutely everything. What we are saying is that before taking action one should take a closer look at what they already have.

– Thinking before acting?

Jon van Rooijen: People relate to the existing buildings. One needs to think about how their views will change with the new building. You can always choose to demolish. Architects and developers are not against demolition as such: it unleashes creativeness. But you need to think about the people living around, about how these changes impact them. The main argument for the preservation of a building used to be its history.

Jean-Paul Corten: We kept buildings because they were telling our history, our culture, and our values. Now we have come to understand that there are other reasons to keep buildings, rather than historical ones. It can be environment, which is no less important than history.

Plus, the social significance of the building. Old buildings can be a point of attraction for the community, a venue. There may be economic reasons. And if you choose preservation, the very process of redevelopment will require more expert workers than a new construction. Labor will be more expensive, which will help to promote certain professions.

Heritage can also attract more investment. There are studies showing that cities with more cultural heritage attract more investment than new cities.

Plus, there is the psychological factor. For example, the study by Happy City Lab in Washington shows that if a city has a very diverse architecture its inhabitants feel psychologically more stable. They say that diversity in the city is achieved, among other things, through layers of history reflected in the city. The more such layers, the more diversity. Accordingly, the happier the inhabitants of the city.

– But how does one choose which building to demolish, and which to keep? For example, we have a lot of poorly built and depressing structures in Moscow. They are the reason why a big renovation program started.

Jean-Paul Corten: Yes, I know about it. But we are saying that it is not necessary to keep every single building. They need to be preserved only when and if they meet social needs. If a building can no longer fulfill its function, then there is no need to keep it. One needs to consider their options. This is what we are trying to say.

– You redeveloped many different buildings. In your opinion, how to choose what to demolish and what to save?

Jean-Paul Corten: Historical reasons are not the only ones that matter when you decide to keep a building. I think the final decision should be based on its potential. What advantages will the old building or a new building bring? What if old factories and plants have a potential for meeting future needs? History is not the only reason. It is important, but this is not the only reason.

Jon van Rooijen: Can the building have a future purpose it can be used for? Moreover, there is already a relationship between the community and the old building, which a new building, obviously, does not have. So, the demolition may affect the established patterns in the area. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the role of the building for the local community.

– How important was it in redevelopment of a church, one of your important experiences?

Jean-Paul Corten: One needs to proceed with caution, of course. But, heritage is not something that must not be changed. Perhaps, if we preclude development, then the whole sense of the heritage is lost because development is the whole point of preserving the building. It is development that creates history. In a broader sense, the architectural heritage is all existing buildings, their complete set saved for our generation. The choice between demolition and adaptation is a matter of future value. For example, the table we are sitting at comes from the past.

Jon van Rooijen: If this table is an heirloom in your family, then you already have a relation to it. At this point, you will think twice before throwing it away. Buildings are the same. Even if a church is empty, it used to be the center of the whole settlement. People gathered in it, prayed, got baptized and so on. The church in this regard is a historical heritage, including the relation of the community to it. Therefore, it was necessary that the renovated building retain this function. However new functions were also needed.

Jean-Paul Corten: Every time period has its own functions. In the case of the church, we found a rather non-standard solution. In one of the villages, a church became a bookstore. But before feeling surprised you need to think about the context. We have 200 empty churches. If it were not for the bookstore, these buildings would inevitably have fallen into ruin. Instead the store and the commercial function brought people who take care of it and visit it.

We had been thinking for a very long time about the new function for those churches. Then I realized that to a certain level, a bookstore with a reading hell and separate coworking areas can meet the same needs as a church. After all, a church is a venue for the local community. If people do not attend the church service, then maybe it will they might be going there for something else. The bookstore can also be used for different events. In this sense, the function of the church is preserved.

Jon van Rooijen: Talking to the rector, he insisted that this function should be preserved. He also said that it would be better to demolish the church than to give it a function that would not respect the past. For example, a nightclub.

– Do you have other examples?

Jon van Rooijen: There is a large warehouse in Rotterdam, which we redeveloped into an apartment complex. It was a part of the city’s history but no longer in use. We made many changes to the exterior of the building but preserved its identity. And it is fine because we have found a balance between the new function and history, which is important.

Jean-Paul Corten: During the public discussion, we heard some people say that we were destroying a part of the building. We were removing the authentic materials. The result reflects the outcome of the discussion. It is also a part of the process. We never think that we will stick to the original project. We only have a general direction, which we try to follow. Our position is that if you do not change anything, you risk losing everything. After all, a building cannot be saved if no one wants to use it.