Rome and London: two visions of heritage

Several centuries apart, these two European capitals have in common the fact that they have had a major influence on the world and still bear the traces of that influence in their urban fabric. And yet, driven by two different philosophies, they have both long-standing strategies for preserving their architectural heritage. Take a tour of the narrow streets of these two historic cities.

Two monumental legacies

Walking around Rome is like stepping back in time. The city is filled with the glorious remains of Roman times: the Colosseum, the Capitol, the temples and thermal baths… but also of the Renaissance and Baroque periods, with the famous Trevi Fountain, for example. Centuries of successive and emblematic constructions have made it the Eternal City, sometimes accused of becoming a museum. Since 1980, it has had one of the largest UNESCO World Heritage sites in the world – 1,500 hectares. The density of its remarkable monuments is exceptional, and the authorities have a great responsibility to protect and enhance them.

Faced with major financial difficulties, the municipality had to call on private funding in the 2010s. The Fendi brand made a major contribution to the restoration of the Trevi Fountain, to the tune of €2.2 million, and used it as the backdrop for one of its fashion shows in 2015. The following year, the Tod’s group contributed €25 million to the restoration of the Colosseum.

London, for its part, conveys an image of an ultra-dynamic global metropolis. Modernity seems to constantly rub shoulders with historic monuments, and the skyscrapers of the City compete with the buildings that are emblematic of London’s history. The British capital’s heritage is more recent, and although some vestiges of the Roman fortifications are still visible and the Elizabethan-era Globe Theatre is still open to the public, the city is full of reminders of the Victorian era: Tower Bridge, the great stations of St Pancras and King’s Cross, and the great museums such as the Victoria and Albert Museum and the Natural History Museum.

In London, tensions around the skyline

In London, as in Rome, heritage preservation has a long history and is highly structured. In the United Kingdom, it is based on English Heritage and Historic England. Some buildings are listed and protected under the Listed Buildings Act. However, the country adopts a rather flexible approach to heritage preservation. “In the UK, economic interests always take precedence over heritage protection,” explains Federica Appendino, a lecturer and researcher at ESPI Paris and the ESPI2R and Lab’URBA laboratories. “The city of Liverpool, for example, preferred to lose its UNESCO label in order to transform its Victorian-era docks“, she illustrates. After classifying its docks as a world heritage site in 2004, UNESCO was alarmed by the numerous redevelopment projects, including the construction of a football stadium and very tall buildings. Unesco then placed the site on the list of World Heritage in Danger, before withdrawing its status in 2021.

Researcher Manuel Appert has done a great deal of work on the London skyline and the way in which the Greater London Authority has adapted its regulations in response to the many skyscraper projects that are transforming the London landscape. In 2007, the city abandoned Regional Planning Guidance 3a, which was deemed too restrictive, in favour of the London View Management Framework (LVMF), which aims to reduce the number of public enquiries required before buildings can be constructed, thereby facilitating the construction of tall buildings. The city council considered that the rules of Regional Planning Guidance 3a did not allow London to compete with other world metropolises, particularly in the construction of skyscrapers, thus hindering its economic development. As for the LVMF regulations, they particularly protect four major monuments (the Tower of London, the Houses of Parliament, St Paul’s Cathedral and Buckingham Palace) and in particular the view corridors. Londoners are not protecting a building and its context, but rather the fact that it is visible from certain strategic sites. Major tensions arise with each project, between the defenders of heritage and the advocates of modernisation.

In Rome, more restrained modernisation

In Italy, preservation is enshrined in the Constitution and overseen by the Ministry of Culture and the Soprintendenza Speciale per i Beni Archeologici di Roma (Special Superintendency for the Archaeological Heritage of Rome). “The protection system is much more restrictive around the monuments, and takes into account the urban scale in a much stricter way. The height of buildings in the hypercentre is very tightly controlled, and in certain zones, new constructions are prohibited or must comply with very strict criteria in terms of materials and design in order to preserve the urban landscape. Historic monuments must be taken into consideration in any project in the surrounding area, and old buildings must be integrated into any modern construction. A constraint from which a great deal of creativity can emerge: the researcher notes some interesting attempts to bring together the old and the contemporary, such as the Museum of Contemporary Art in Rome, MACRo, built on the site of a former beer factory and extended by the architect Odile Decq. She also cites the Maxxi Foundation, designed by Zaha Hadid from former military buildings.

What if the notion of heritage was evolving?

Today, some voices in Rome are denouncing the fact that twentieth-century architecture is less well protected than older buildings. In a 2011 recommendation on the historic landscape, UNESCO is also calling for a different approach to the notion of heritage, incorporating intangible features such as ways of life and exchanges. This recommendation moves the notion of environmental preservation forward by advocating dynamic management, in line with the needs of the population, as opposed to a fixed vision of the urban landscape. It’s a way of combating the museification of cities.