The management of cultural urban heritage monuments in European cities after war is a matter that presents some interesting variations over time.It usually underlines a dual political manifestation,either as an attemp...The management of cultural urban heritage monuments in European cities after war is a matter that presents some interesting variations over time.It usually underlines a dual political manifestation,either as an attempt to reverse history,through a form of cultural"recovery"of monuments and encouraging a pre-war statement,either as an attempt to perpetuate the dark memory of the"atrocity"of the enemies through the preservation of the monument in form of a ruin,or in some cases as a kind of"purism"by removing cultural symbols and monuments attributed to war opponents in a process of symbolic reconstruction to support a new political narrative.Cultural properties,as described by UNESCO since 1954,represent a valuable urban asset that despite any political intentions are at serious threat during war times.Almost eight decades since World War II,the war in Ukraine raises forgotten issues for the European Region.The historic centre of the city of Lviv and the Saint Sophia Cathedral of Kyiv,among others,are world heritage sites,registered in the list of UNESCO,all of which various international organisations have expressed serious concerns about their state of survival.This paper aims to demonstrate from past examples the importance of safekeeping-built heritage,from any side of conflict parts,and in this respect highlighting the significance of culture over politics.Analysing thus monuments in recent European history that had suffered serious damage during military operations,as well as demonstrating various means of management that followed,in relation to the political expediency from which these options were dictated,considered in their historical context,while,at the same time,cross-referencing similar practices applied in Ukraine.展开更多
The 19th century was a milestone for urban planning history of the Eastern Mediterranean region since the typology of the Ottoman city was reformed,more or less abruptly,by strong Western European influences as a cons...The 19th century was a milestone for urban planning history of the Eastern Mediterranean region since the typology of the Ottoman city was reformed,more or less abruptly,by strong Western European influences as a consequence of broader political,economic,and social transformations.From the very beginning of the 19th century,the Ottoman state confronted significant administrative issues that raised in the importance to institutionalise reforms over a long period of time,representing the foundation of later urban“modernisation reforms”.These challenges of the Ottoman cities at that period coincided with one crucial reform framework known as“Tanzimat”,which reflected the social willingness to inherit elements of European culture,technological innovations,and lifestyle.According to that direction,urban space was considered as a workshop of planning regulations and reforms adopting principles of contemporary,at that time,European urban planning,mostly applied in England and France.These social and urban reforms established by the Ottoman state marked the first attempt to relate Ottoman cities with European planning,urban infrastructures,building regulations,and public administration.During the period of Tanzimat(1839-1876),the economic role and impact of cities was strengthened reflecting a rising urbanisation of population.This article highlights this“Europeanisation”of Ottoman cities at the period of Tanzimat by investigating five case-study cities:Smyrna,Beirut,Alexandria,Thessaloniki,and Constantinople.All these cities were important ports-hubs of the Eastern Mediterranean whose urban development since the 1840s was a direct consequence of the modernisation reforms and,in general,an increase of European influence.These urban reforms,like in many European cities,included new transport infrastructures and communication networks,public services(water,gas,tramways,etc.),health and education,and new industrial patterns.展开更多
文摘The management of cultural urban heritage monuments in European cities after war is a matter that presents some interesting variations over time.It usually underlines a dual political manifestation,either as an attempt to reverse history,through a form of cultural"recovery"of monuments and encouraging a pre-war statement,either as an attempt to perpetuate the dark memory of the"atrocity"of the enemies through the preservation of the monument in form of a ruin,or in some cases as a kind of"purism"by removing cultural symbols and monuments attributed to war opponents in a process of symbolic reconstruction to support a new political narrative.Cultural properties,as described by UNESCO since 1954,represent a valuable urban asset that despite any political intentions are at serious threat during war times.Almost eight decades since World War II,the war in Ukraine raises forgotten issues for the European Region.The historic centre of the city of Lviv and the Saint Sophia Cathedral of Kyiv,among others,are world heritage sites,registered in the list of UNESCO,all of which various international organisations have expressed serious concerns about their state of survival.This paper aims to demonstrate from past examples the importance of safekeeping-built heritage,from any side of conflict parts,and in this respect highlighting the significance of culture over politics.Analysing thus monuments in recent European history that had suffered serious damage during military operations,as well as demonstrating various means of management that followed,in relation to the political expediency from which these options were dictated,considered in their historical context,while,at the same time,cross-referencing similar practices applied in Ukraine.
文摘The 19th century was a milestone for urban planning history of the Eastern Mediterranean region since the typology of the Ottoman city was reformed,more or less abruptly,by strong Western European influences as a consequence of broader political,economic,and social transformations.From the very beginning of the 19th century,the Ottoman state confronted significant administrative issues that raised in the importance to institutionalise reforms over a long period of time,representing the foundation of later urban“modernisation reforms”.These challenges of the Ottoman cities at that period coincided with one crucial reform framework known as“Tanzimat”,which reflected the social willingness to inherit elements of European culture,technological innovations,and lifestyle.According to that direction,urban space was considered as a workshop of planning regulations and reforms adopting principles of contemporary,at that time,European urban planning,mostly applied in England and France.These social and urban reforms established by the Ottoman state marked the first attempt to relate Ottoman cities with European planning,urban infrastructures,building regulations,and public administration.During the period of Tanzimat(1839-1876),the economic role and impact of cities was strengthened reflecting a rising urbanisation of population.This article highlights this“Europeanisation”of Ottoman cities at the period of Tanzimat by investigating five case-study cities:Smyrna,Beirut,Alexandria,Thessaloniki,and Constantinople.All these cities were important ports-hubs of the Eastern Mediterranean whose urban development since the 1840s was a direct consequence of the modernisation reforms and,in general,an increase of European influence.These urban reforms,like in many European cities,included new transport infrastructures and communication networks,public services(water,gas,tramways,etc.),health and education,and new industrial patterns.
