In all conservation of architecture, the first effective step is to decide and define what buildings or sites are worthy of protection. For most countries this has involved a systematic process of inventory and survey. In Great Britain, for example, the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (RCHM) was set up in 1908, and the Civic Amenities Act of 1967 enabled local planning authorities to define special areas for “conservation and enhancement.” In France, the Commission des Secteurs Sauvegardés was set up in 1962 under André Malraux, minister for cultural affairs, to pursue an active program for public protection of historic areas. In the United States, the Historic American Buildings Survey was designed to assemble a national archive of historic American architecture.

Criteria for conservation are rarely well defined. Architectural merit clearly must rank highly—especially in the case of any building that authentically exemplifies its period. Historical associations, such as the birthplace of a famous person, are less easily rated. One pernicious effect of all selection is the way in which the most outstanding architectural example of any period, rather than a truly typical example, is what in the end is chosen to remain as a representation of a particular period of architecture. Another is that defects as well as merits may be kept warm under the same blanket. This is particularly so in the larger groups of buildings that are coming to be recognized as worthy of conservation.

Once a building has been targeted for preservation, its next defense is in specific legal powers for its protection. These may be of varied degree and effectiveness. The most obvious form of legislation is the restriction against demolition. A higher degree of legal sophistication occurs in powers for the annexation of property and its maintenance by the state. Covenanted rights and restrictions are a variant of this principle. Next in the scale of effectiveness comes positive encouragement to owners by means of grants, bringing a public share and interest in the work of repair. In this way, actual legal rights over private property may be confined to a minimum while finance is encouraged from private pockets. Probably the most effective ultimate defense is selective protection, exercised as a regular part of everyday town- and country-planning control.

Negative legislation itself varies in degree. In Italy it is possible to insist upon the return even of certain pictures or chattels illegally dispersed from a building where these are adjudged to be of sufficient national importance. But negative powers are inherently weak. They convey no control over the philistine or intransigent owner and, at best, can only slow down neglect and demolition, whether deliberate or otherwise.

The national acquisition of buildings for conservation in Britain has been carried out chiefly under the Ancient Monuments Consolidation and Amendment Act of 1913, by which suitable unoccupied properties can be “taken into guardianship.” A much more rigorous application of the principle is sometimes possible in the United States, whereby the owners of whole groups of buildings held to be of sufficient distinction can in fact be legally dispossessed. These erstwhile owners may then be allowed to remain in residence on condition of the repair and rehabilitation of their buildings to a specified standard. In this way, whole areas of buildings, such as Society Hill in Philadelphia, have been taken over, concentrated redevelopment by high-rise apartments being permitted in selected inner locations, while old buildings with frontage are restored in period styles.

1 of 2

2 of 2

The most exhaustive of all restoration projects is in the United States, at Williamsburg, Virginia. This 170-acre (70-hectare) town, the colonial capital of Virginia from 1699 to 1780, has attracted the most expensive restoration program ever undertaken. Commenced in 1926, the project is dedicated to the purpose “that the future may learn from the past.” Careful and scholarly restoration has been completed on more than 500 buildings. Environmental management is of a high order. Tourist automobile traffic is excluded from the restored area in season, when a free bus service is provided. The emphasis is frankly educational. The enterprise not only owns its buildings but also staffs them, its employees wearing correct period costume.

One of the most dramatic rescue operations has been in Egypt, where the ancient temples (c. 1250 bc) of Abu Simbel were threatened with destruction by the rising waters of the Aswān High Dam. They were sawed into giant blocks and successfully reassembled 200 feet (60 metres) above the original site. This act of preservation was the result of intensive international negotiation and expertise.

Another variant on public ownership may be found in acquisition by a private body, such as the National Trust in Great Britain. Founded in 1895, this property-owning body opens to the public several hundred of its properties. The trust receives no direct government subsidy and relies upon careful economic management, although certain legal preferences operate in its favour. In the United States the National Trust for Historic Preservation operates in a similar way.

Among bodies devoted to grant aid, the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England (as successor to the Historic Buildings Council) disburses grants within a modest annual budget, largely to help building owners penalized by heavy estate duties. These grants are administered to encourage owners to take pride in their own buildings. The commission is also responsible for the management of more than 400 monuments in the nation’s care.

A pioneer training program in architectural conservation has been established by the Faculty of Architecture of Rome University. Of six months’ duration, the course provides specialist training in conservation for architects of all nationalities. In many countries, comparable courses are now available to meet the need for suitably qualified and experienced architects.