Architectural heritage and the actions—positive and negative—concerning it, are not only different in each country, but they also change over time. It is widely assumed that this is due to changes in values. However, the more determining factors are education and political systems. These two are intrinsically connected, and affect the making of local and national contexts, which ultimately support, or not, protection and conservation actions. Invariably, in democratic settings with high levels of education, architectural heritage is valued, protected and conserved. Historically—and unlike in other disciplines—in architectural conservation, theory was only defined after successful practice and by the competent professionals who executed it. This is the case of the Venice Charter, (1964), still the main reference for practitioners when intervening in architectural heritage. There is a clear relationship between the emergence of literature on the economics of heritage, heritage management and cultural geography, and the recent trends promoting the de-listing of buildings or to allow them to decline to avoid the cost of conservation and maintenance. This literature is used to justify these actions and, ironically, sometimes more funds are spent on digitally documenting buildings and/or talking about them than maintaining them. This is clear evidence of the deviation of the very purpose of conserving architectural heritage, which has been passed to us for our generation to enjoy, and we should do our best to transmit it to future ones. This paper discusses the current situation in Europe concerning architectural conservation, with a particular focus on the Council of Europe Framework Conventions of Granada (1985) and Faro (2005), and the approach and practices in individual countries. It discusses some representative examples, identifying the main theories (and lack of) employed by governments, authorities and professionals and the outcomes. It reflects on the reasons why we have arrived at the current situation of architectural conservation being misunderstood or underrepresented. The paper also defines the need for coordinated policy actions, particularly the formal classification of architectural conservation as a scientific discipline. It presents the need for more research and specialist education in architectural conservation to improve current unregulated and inappropriate practices.
Cristina González-Longo (Thu,) studied this question.