4th January 2008, 01:29 PM
I feel that Peter Wardle has missed the point of Kenny's piece completely, which, in Kenny's own words, is a discussion of how the "historic environment has the potential to strengthen the sense of community and provide a solid basis for neighbourhood renewal".
I don't wish to be drawn into the specifics of Peter's points about various locales in Scotland, but I would like to take issue with two of the general comments he makes.
Firstly Peter says that "he (Kenny) talks about the historic environment being a fragile and finite resource while this is true about archaeological remains it is certainly not the case when considering the historic environment as a whole"
Well to begin with I would suggest that many standing buildings are particularly vulnerable to destruction, especially those that are not listed or otherwise protected by statutory mechanisms. Smaller, vernacular buildings, and buildings of the last 100 years or so, are particularly vulnerable. Once gone, they are lost forever. Landscapes too are under continuous threat, regardless of the presence or absence of Conservation Area legislation. And, incidentally, how do you 'enhance' a conservation area? - by putting up new railings, hanging baskets, so-called traffic calming, imitation cobblestones, etc. etc. - thereby destroying the very ambience you are trying to preserve! Even small changes, like new street lighting or road signage, uPVC double glazing, television aerials and so-on, can be quite detrimental to the sense of place.
Secondly, and, more worryingly, is Peter's assertion that he "work(s) to earn money â I am a professional." Frankly, I call your bluff! If money was your sole motivation for working then you would not have chosen to be an historic environment professional. Somewhere along the line you developed an interest in "the past" and decided to pursue it. Otherwise you might be working for an oil company, or in the financial markets at the Stock Exchange. If you are truly a professional then the acquisition of money shouldn't be your only objective (regardless of your specialism - be it law, architecture or forestry). I find particularly offensive the implication in this remark that you can only be a professional if you are in it for the money. Many of our colleagues working for local or central government, for example, are thoroughly professional and are certainly not in it for the money.
Peter has failed to understand the concept of value. Yes, the value of the historic environment can be measured in financial terms. But to measure it [u]only</u> in financial terms is completely wrong. When he asks...
"Ultimately is there anything wrong with protecting the historic environment not for some altruistic or sentimental reason but in order to make money?"
...my answer would be "yes", if your only motive, your sole motive, is to make money. This is not to say that making money is wrong. Certainly money can be made through protecting the historic environment, and in fact large parts of our historic environment [u]can only be preserved</u> by ensuring that they do in fact make money themselves (for example the conversion of former textile mills to apartment housing or other economically viable uses).
But there will always be some elements of the environment (historic or otherwise) that have no monetary or financial value but do have social and cultural values which are equally important. And which society as a whole agrees are worth preserving. Why, for instance, don't we pave over Hyde Park and turn it into housing? Because its value as an aesthetic, social, cultural and environmental amenity far outweighs any amount of money that could be made from selling it off. As taxpayers we agree to support the work of English Heritage. As individuals we may chose to join the National Trust. We may disagree with the Common Agricultural Policy for many reasons, but we can acknowledge that subsidy of farming in upland areas (for example) has retained historic landscapes and ways of life which enrich us all and provide that important sense of place.
Ultimately, Peter's position seems to lead us towards a place that I certainly don't want Britain to become.
I don't wish to be drawn into the specifics of Peter's points about various locales in Scotland, but I would like to take issue with two of the general comments he makes.
Firstly Peter says that "he (Kenny) talks about the historic environment being a fragile and finite resource while this is true about archaeological remains it is certainly not the case when considering the historic environment as a whole"
Well to begin with I would suggest that many standing buildings are particularly vulnerable to destruction, especially those that are not listed or otherwise protected by statutory mechanisms. Smaller, vernacular buildings, and buildings of the last 100 years or so, are particularly vulnerable. Once gone, they are lost forever. Landscapes too are under continuous threat, regardless of the presence or absence of Conservation Area legislation. And, incidentally, how do you 'enhance' a conservation area? - by putting up new railings, hanging baskets, so-called traffic calming, imitation cobblestones, etc. etc. - thereby destroying the very ambience you are trying to preserve! Even small changes, like new street lighting or road signage, uPVC double glazing, television aerials and so-on, can be quite detrimental to the sense of place.
Secondly, and, more worryingly, is Peter's assertion that he "work(s) to earn money â I am a professional." Frankly, I call your bluff! If money was your sole motivation for working then you would not have chosen to be an historic environment professional. Somewhere along the line you developed an interest in "the past" and decided to pursue it. Otherwise you might be working for an oil company, or in the financial markets at the Stock Exchange. If you are truly a professional then the acquisition of money shouldn't be your only objective (regardless of your specialism - be it law, architecture or forestry). I find particularly offensive the implication in this remark that you can only be a professional if you are in it for the money. Many of our colleagues working for local or central government, for example, are thoroughly professional and are certainly not in it for the money.
Peter has failed to understand the concept of value. Yes, the value of the historic environment can be measured in financial terms. But to measure it [u]only</u> in financial terms is completely wrong. When he asks...
"Ultimately is there anything wrong with protecting the historic environment not for some altruistic or sentimental reason but in order to make money?"
...my answer would be "yes", if your only motive, your sole motive, is to make money. This is not to say that making money is wrong. Certainly money can be made through protecting the historic environment, and in fact large parts of our historic environment [u]can only be preserved</u> by ensuring that they do in fact make money themselves (for example the conversion of former textile mills to apartment housing or other economically viable uses).
But there will always be some elements of the environment (historic or otherwise) that have no monetary or financial value but do have social and cultural values which are equally important. And which society as a whole agrees are worth preserving. Why, for instance, don't we pave over Hyde Park and turn it into housing? Because its value as an aesthetic, social, cultural and environmental amenity far outweighs any amount of money that could be made from selling it off. As taxpayers we agree to support the work of English Heritage. As individuals we may chose to join the National Trust. We may disagree with the Common Agricultural Policy for many reasons, but we can acknowledge that subsidy of farming in upland areas (for example) has retained historic landscapes and ways of life which enrich us all and provide that important sense of place.
Ultimately, Peter's position seems to lead us towards a place that I certainly don't want Britain to become.