ABSTRACT Considered within a broader exploration of special challenges and opportunities inherent in healthrelated built heritage,this article discusses the virtual absence of 20th-century mental healthcare facilities...ABSTRACT Considered within a broader exploration of special challenges and opportunities inherent in healthrelated built heritage,this article discusses the virtual absence of 20th-century mental healthcare facilities from English heritage lists.It aims to examine the reasons for such an absence and reflect on potential solutions towards a more balanced representation.Building activity related to mental healthcare in England was extensive throughout the 20th century and also varied considerably:from interior reconfigurations of existing structures to additions of nondescript buildings and wartime temporary structures,as well as new building types and flagship commissions that attracted central government funding and prestigious private architectural designers.Given this wide range,the discussion here focuses on one new building type that emerged as a variation of earlier asylum typologies at the turn of the century and continued to evolve until its later decades.That is,the primary focus is on what became known at different times as Reception,Admission,or Early Treatment Hospitals(henceforth'admission hospitals'),and effectively served as a connecting thread across a series of critical policy and practice changes.By demonstrating the varying qualities and architectural features of these built structures and the critical policy and scientific developments in the field of mental healthcare during the 20th century to which these structures were associated,the article argues that some of these admission hospitals ought to be considered for heritage protection as successors to the 19th-century asylums.On this basis,the article discusses the suitability of specific evaluation systems,primarily historic themati framework approaches that prioritise the analysis of historical contexts and linkages.The article also reflects on the relevance of broader developments in the field of heritage that can be seen as contributing to more holistic approaches,such as intangible heritage,heritage democratisation,multivocal narratives,or even rights-based approaches.Finally,considering the limited work in this area,as well as the number of examples already lost,the article stresses the need for urgent action if any sufficiently intact surviving structures are to be identified,recognised for their particular contribution to the mental healthcare field and safeguarded for the future.展开更多
Over the last 25 years the conservation of 20^(th)-century heritage has developed into a distinct area of practice, catalysed by the efforts of dedicated international and local interest groups and the forward thinkin...Over the last 25 years the conservation of 20^(th)-century heritage has developed into a distinct area of practice, catalysed by the efforts of dedicated international and local interest groups and the forward thinking of a number of government and inter-government organisations who identified, protected and developed approaches to its care. Much has been achieved, but more work is needed to address many of the distinct challenges to conserving the heritage of the 20^(th) century. In 2011, the Getty Conservation Institute (GCI) launched its Conserving Modern Architecture Initiative (CMAI), which seeks to respond to the outstanding current challenges and contribute to advancing practice in this emerging area of conservation. It began with a survey of the field to identify where existing efforts could be best supported and enhanced, or where knowledge gaps could be potentially filled. In response the GCI built a comprehensive program to meet these identified needs and five years later, a number of activities and projects are underway. These include a series of publications, a training program, historical and technical research and two field projects at Louis Kahn’s Salk Biological Institute (1965) and the house of Ray and Charles Eames (1949), both in California. This paper outlines current GCI efforts, reports on initial outcomes and describes forthcoming activities.展开更多
基金supported by the University of Liverpool's School of the Arts"Research Development Initiative Fund"(RDIF)the Liverpool School of Architecture's David Foster Wicks(DFW)Endowment Small Research Grants 2025-26.
文摘ABSTRACT Considered within a broader exploration of special challenges and opportunities inherent in healthrelated built heritage,this article discusses the virtual absence of 20th-century mental healthcare facilities from English heritage lists.It aims to examine the reasons for such an absence and reflect on potential solutions towards a more balanced representation.Building activity related to mental healthcare in England was extensive throughout the 20th century and also varied considerably:from interior reconfigurations of existing structures to additions of nondescript buildings and wartime temporary structures,as well as new building types and flagship commissions that attracted central government funding and prestigious private architectural designers.Given this wide range,the discussion here focuses on one new building type that emerged as a variation of earlier asylum typologies at the turn of the century and continued to evolve until its later decades.That is,the primary focus is on what became known at different times as Reception,Admission,or Early Treatment Hospitals(henceforth'admission hospitals'),and effectively served as a connecting thread across a series of critical policy and practice changes.By demonstrating the varying qualities and architectural features of these built structures and the critical policy and scientific developments in the field of mental healthcare during the 20th century to which these structures were associated,the article argues that some of these admission hospitals ought to be considered for heritage protection as successors to the 19th-century asylums.On this basis,the article discusses the suitability of specific evaluation systems,primarily historic themati framework approaches that prioritise the analysis of historical contexts and linkages.The article also reflects on the relevance of broader developments in the field of heritage that can be seen as contributing to more holistic approaches,such as intangible heritage,heritage democratisation,multivocal narratives,or even rights-based approaches.Finally,considering the limited work in this area,as well as the number of examples already lost,the article stresses the need for urgent action if any sufficiently intact surviving structures are to be identified,recognised for their particular contribution to the mental healthcare field and safeguarded for the future.
文摘Over the last 25 years the conservation of 20^(th)-century heritage has developed into a distinct area of practice, catalysed by the efforts of dedicated international and local interest groups and the forward thinking of a number of government and inter-government organisations who identified, protected and developed approaches to its care. Much has been achieved, but more work is needed to address many of the distinct challenges to conserving the heritage of the 20^(th) century. In 2011, the Getty Conservation Institute (GCI) launched its Conserving Modern Architecture Initiative (CMAI), which seeks to respond to the outstanding current challenges and contribute to advancing practice in this emerging area of conservation. It began with a survey of the field to identify where existing efforts could be best supported and enhanced, or where knowledge gaps could be potentially filled. In response the GCI built a comprehensive program to meet these identified needs and five years later, a number of activities and projects are underway. These include a series of publications, a training program, historical and technical research and two field projects at Louis Kahn’s Salk Biological Institute (1965) and the house of Ray and Charles Eames (1949), both in California. This paper outlines current GCI efforts, reports on initial outcomes and describes forthcoming activities.
