Nostalgia for the new preservation values for modern urban heritage
Anja K. Nevanlinna (Dr.), Senior Research Fellow, Academy of Finland
Abstract
Modern heritage - a contradiction in terms? 'Modern' suggests places which are novel
and up-to-date, that is, not 'heritage' as traditional or even antiquated traces of the past.
In the context of urbanism and architecture, the inherent contradiction is not only
conceptual but also entails practical consequences. For developing strategies on modern
heritage, we need to refine the philosophical basis of preservation.
19th Century preservation was founded on the value of the origin of the monument and
of its stylistic unity, as Alois Riegl noted in his analysis of the cult of monuments
(1903). Although these premises have been questioned in connection with older
architecture, they are still applied in the preservation of the recent past. Modern heritage
is frozen to its pristine origin, the first moment when the intentions of the architect were
realized and, simultaneously, a timeless model for the future.
We may criticize the canon for surpassing the post-completion history of buildings and
urban spaces. 'Modern' understood as without a past has dominated over 'heritage.' What
is left out are the processes of change in space uses, alterations in the built forms, and
the whole network of cultural practices which determine the meanings the place carries
for the different groups of people living the city. The significance of the history of a
place to the general public may affect professional preservation policies, as
controversial examples in Helsinki illustrate. When the histories of places are included
in preservation criteria, both the places worth preserving and the strategies for their
preservation will need to be reconsidered.
Department of Art History
University of Helsinki
PL 3, FIN-00100 Helsinki, Finland
fax: +3589 1912 2961
e-mail: anja.nevanlinna@helsinki.fi
