The article focuses on the notion of Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) introduced by the UNESCO in 2005 and 2011 responding to the expanding understanding of cultural heritage and the urgent call to reconcile heritage preservation and contemporary urban developments and re-introduce heritage as a driver of urban and overall societies development. The analysis of the fundamental and recent literature on the theoretical grounding and the applications of HUL had revealed numerous benefits of this concept including the integration potential, acknowledgement of intangible dimensions of heritage and the values of contemporary architecture; however, several challenges and conflicts were identified as well: the challenge of the search of valuable historical patterns, the questions of what extent of change of historic environment is acceptable, and the underlying tension between the call to conserve the existing valuable historical fabric and the urge to employ heritage as the driver for high quality future development. The research suggests that the understanding of the notion of authenticity plays the fundamental role in the success of the HUL approach and, after reviewing the contemporary ideas on heritage authenticity, introduces permanent pervading authenticity, which would allow searching for valuable development patterns based on kairos time instead of chronos in the frame of the HUL concept.
AlexanderCh., SilversteinM., & IshikawaS. (1977). The pattern language: Towns, buildings, construction. Oxford University Press.
2.
AshworthG. (2011). Preservation, conservation and heritage: Approaches to the past in the present through a built environment. Asian Anthropology, 10(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/1683478X.2011.10552601.
3.
AshworthG., & KavaratzisM. (2015). Hijacking culture: The disconnection between place, culture and place brands. Town Planning Review, 86(2), 155–176. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2015.10.
4.
AugustinaitisA. (2006). Viešieji ryšiai ir viešybės valdymas žinių visuomenėje [Public relations and public administration in the knowledge society]. Information Sciences, 38, 15–26.
5.
BandarinF. (2019). Reshaping urban conservation: The Historic Urban Landscape approach in action. In RodersA. Pereira & BandarinF. (Eds.), Series on creativity, heritage and the city 2—Reshaping urban conservation: The Historic Urban Landscape approach in action. Springer.
6.
BandarinF., & van OersR. (2012). The Historic Urban Landscape: Managing heritage in an urban century. Wiley-Blackwell.
7.
BandarinF., & van OersR. (2015). Reconnecting the city: The Historic Urban Landscape approach and the future of urban heritage. Wiley-Blackwell.
8.
BaronH. (1955). The crisis of the early Italian Renaissance: Civic humanism and republican liberty in an age of classicism and tyranny. Princeton University press.
9.
ČepaitienėR. (Ed.). (2014). Vietos dvasia: prijaukinimas ar medžioklė [Spirit of place: domestication or hunting]. In Vietos dvasios beieškant [Searching for the Spirit of Place]. Lietuvis istorijos institutas.
10.
ChapagainN. K. (2017). Blurring boundaries and moving beyond the tangible/intangible and the natural/cultural classifications of heritage: Cases from Nepal. In SilvaK. D. & SinhaA. (Eds.), Cultural landscapes of South Asia: Studies in heritage conservation and management (pp. 24–38). Routledge.
11.
CosgroveD. E. (1994). Should we take it all so seriously? Culture, conservation and meaning in the contemporary world. In CosgroveD. E., KrumbeinW. E., BrimblecombeP., & StaniforthS. (Eds.), Durability and change: The science, responsibility and cost of sustaining cultural heritage (pp. 259–266). John Wiley.
12.
CzarniawskaB. (2004). On time, space and actions nets. Organization, 11, 773–791.
13.
de ChardinT. (1959). The phenomenon of man. Harper.
14.
DeSilveyC. (2017). Curated decay. University of Minnesota Press.
15.
DhingraM., SinghM. K., & ChattopadhyayS. (2017). Macro level characterization of Historic Urban Landscape: Case study of Alwar walled city. City, Culture and Society, 9, 39–53.
16.
ErkanY. (2018). Viewpoint: Historic Urban Landscape approach for sustainable urban development. The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice, 9(3–4), 346–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/17567505.2018.1517192.
17.
FibigerTh. 2015. Heritage erasure and heritage transformation: How heritage is created by destruction in Bahrain. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 21(4), 390–404. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2014.930064.
18.
GaniatsasV. (2011). Heritage as ethical paradigms of identity and change: In need of new conceptual tools, practices or attitude. In LippW., StulcJ., SzmyginB., & GiomettiS. (Eds.), Conservation turn: Return to conservation (pp. 151–162). Edizioni Polistampa.
19.
GinzarlyM., HoubartC., & TellerJ. (2019a). The Historic Urban Landscape approach to urban management: a systematic review. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 25(10), 999–1019. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2018.1552615.
20.
GinzarlyM., RodersA. P., & TellerJ. (2019b). Mapping Historic Urban Landscape values through social media. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 36, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2018.10.002.
21.
HeideggerM. (2010 [1927]). Being and time. SUNY Press.
22.
HoltorfC. (2015). Averting loss aversion in cultural heritage. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 21(4), 405–421. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2014.938766.
23.
ICOMOS (1975). The Declaration of Amsterdam. Congress of the European Architectural Heritage. https://www.icomos.org/en/and/169-the-declaration-of-amsterdam
JamesP., MageeL., ScerriA., & StegerM. (2014). Urban sustainability in theory and practice: Circles of sustainability. Routledge.
26.
KakuM. (2014). The future of the mind: The scientific quest to understand, enhance, and empower the mind. Double Day.
27.
KhalafR. W. (2018). A proposal to apply the Historic Urban Landscape approach to reconstruction in the world heritage context. The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice, 9(1), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/17567505.2018.1424615.
28.
KurzweilR. (2005). The singularity is near. Viking books.
29.
LabadiS. (2010). World Heritage, authenticity and post-authenticity. In LabadiS. & LongC. (Eds.), Heritage and globalization (pp. 66–84). Taylor & Francis.
30.
LanganCh. (2018b). Metareligion as the human singularity. Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy, 14(1), 321–32.
31.
Le BlancF. (2019). Heritage conservation terminology: Definition of terms from various sources. http://ip51.icomos.org/~fleblanc/documents/terminology/doc_terminology_e.html
32.
LinZ. (2016). Metabolist utopias and their global influence: Three paradigms of urbanism. Journal of Urban History, 42(3), 604–622.
33.
OnestiA., BiancamanoP. F., & BosoneM. (2018, December13–14). From tangible to intangible and return: Hybrid tools for operationalizing Historic Urban Landscape approach [Paper presentation]. ICOMOS 19th General Assembly and Scientific Symposium Heritage and Democracy, New Delhi.
34.
PetrulisV. (2019). Paveldas kaip konfliktas: metodologinės Lietuvos XX a. architektūrinio palikimo vertinimo prielaidos. Technologija.
35.
ReunanenT., & VanharantaH. (2019). Correlations between holistic awareness of time and innovativeness. In KantolaJ., NazirS., & BarathT. (Eds.), AHFE 2018: Advances in human factors, business management and society (Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol. 783). Springer.
36.
Rey-PerezJ., & ÁvilaM. E. S. (2017). Historic urban landscape: an approach for sustainable management in Cuenca (Ecuador). Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, 7(3), 308–327. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCHMSD-12-2016-0064
37.
Rey-PérezJ., & González-MartínezP. (2018). Lights and shadows over the Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape: ‘Managing change’ in Ballarat and Cuenca through a radical approach focused on values and authenticity. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 24(1), 101–116.
38.
RudokasK. (2019). Holistic perception of urban and architectural heritage: Eschatological approach. Logos, 101, 147–158. https://doi.org/10.24101/logos.2019.82
39.
RusselI. (2010). Heritage, identities and roots: A critique of arborescent models of heritage and identity. In SmithG., MessengerP., & SoderlandH. (Eds.), Heritage values in contemporary society (pp. 29–41). Left Coast Press.
40.
SandfordR. (2019). Thinking with heritage: past and present in lived futures. Futures, 111, 71–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2019.06.004.
41.
SantanderA. A., Garai-OlaunA. A., & de la Fuente AranaA. (2018). Historic urban landscapes: A review on trends and methodologies in the urban context of the 21st century. Sustainability, 10, 2603. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082603
42.
SilvaK. D. (2020a). Introduction: Reimagining the conservation of Historic Urban Landscapes in the Asia-Pacific. In SilvaK. D. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook on Historic Urban Landscapes in the Asia-Pacific (pp. 1–26). Routledge.
43.
SilvaK. D. (2020b). The Routledge handbook on Historic Urban Landscapes in the Asia-Pacific. Routledge.
44.
SinghR. P. B., RanaP. S., & KumarS. (2020). Intangible dimensions of urban heritage: Learning from holy cities of India. In SilvaK. D. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook on Historic Urban Landscapes in the Asia-Pacific. Routledge.
45.
SmithJ. E. (1969). Time, times, and the ‘right time’:Chronos and kairos. The Monist, 53(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5840/monist196953115.
46.
TaylorK., St ClairA., & MitchellN. J. (2015). Introduction: Cultural Landscapes: Twenty-First Century Conservation Opportunities and Challenges. In TaylorK., St ClairA., & MitchellN. J. (Eds.), Conserving cultural landscapes: challenges and new directions (pp. 1–26). Routledge.
47.
TaylorK. (2016). The Historic Urban Landscape paradigm and cities as cultural landscapes: Challenging orthodoxy in urban conservation. Landscape Research, 41(4), 471–480.
48.
UNESCO (2005). Vienna Memorandum: World Heritage and Contemporary Architecture—Managing the Historic Urban Landscape. (2005). https://whc.unesco.org/en/documents/5965
49.
UNESCO (2011). Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape. https://whc.unesco.org/uploads/activities/documents/activity-638-98.pdf
50.
UNESCO (2016). The HUL guidebook: Managing heritage in dynamic and constantly changing urban environments—A practical guide to UNESCO’s Recommendations on the Historic Urban Landscape. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000259684
51.
VaccaroM. A., PriceN. S., & TalleyM.Jr. (1996). Historical and philosophical issues in the conservation of cultural heritage: Readings in conservation series. The Getty Publications.
52.
van der HoevenA. (2019). Historic Urban Landscapes on social media: The contributions of online narrative practices to urban heritage conservation. City, Culture and Society, 17, 61–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccs.2018.12.001
53.
van OersR., & Pereira RodersA. (2012). Historic cities as model of sustainability. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, 2(1), 4–14.
54.
WangSh., & GuK. (2020). Pingyao: The Historic Urban Landscape and planning for heritage-led urban changes. Cities, 97, 102489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102489.
55.
ZeayterH., & MansourA. M. H. (2018). Heritage conservation ideologies analysis: Historic Urban Landscape approach for a Mediterranean historic city case study. HBRC Journal, 14(3), 345–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hbrcj.2017.06.001
