HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF HERITAGE LEGISLATION. BALANCE BETWEEN LAWS AND VALUES HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF HERITAGE LEGISLATION. BALANCE BETWEEN LAWS AND VALUES 2 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF HERITAGE LEGISLATION. BALANCE BETWEEN LAWS AND VALUES International conference October 12-13, 2016 Niguliste Museum Tallinn, Estonia Conference proceedings Conference team: ICOMOS Estonia NC; ICLAFI; Estonian Academy of Arts; Tallinn Urban Planning Department Division of Heritage Protection; Estonian National Heritage Board Publication: ICOMOS Estonia NC; ICLAFI; Estonian Academy of Arts Editors: Riin Alatalu, Anneli Randla, Laura Ingerpuu, Diana Haapsal Design and layout: Elle Lepik Photos: authors, Tõnu Noorits Tallinn 2017 ISBN 978-9949-88-197-0 (pdf) The conference and meetings of ICLAFI and Nordic-Baltic ICOMOS National Committees were supported by: Estonian Academy of Arts, Tallinn Urban Planning Department Division of Heritage Protection, National Heritage Board, Ministry of Culture, Nordic Council of Ministers Published with the fnancial support from Estonian Cultural Foundation © ICOMOS ESTONIA NC, 2017 © ICLAFI, 2017 © Authors of the articles, 2017 international council on monuments and sites 30 LITHUANIA – THE STANDARD SETTER FOR URBAN HERITAGE PROTECTION IN THE FORMER USSR? VILTE JANUSAUSKAITE The post-war period is seen as an ambiguous time concerning the aspect of heritage protection. The situation appeared to be even more complicated in the Baltic States that had been forced to join USSR. Vilte Janusauskaite, The old capitals were not only the symbols of their independent past, but also did not meet any of the conservation architect and criteria set according to the standards of modern socialist planning. It was not until 1956 when the first PhD student at Vilnius Univer- sity Faculty of History, conservation project for Vilnius old town was launched after criticism on the demolitions in the Old Town member of ICOMOS Lithuania. had been expressed by many professionals. The first “Reconstruction project” came into force in 1959 and it’s been known in Lithuanian historiography as the first project of this type and thus the model for Vilte has a Master’s degree in architecture and a degree in subsequent ones in the entire USSR. Only thirty years later, together with the emerging Lithuanian National cultural history and anthro- Independence movement, did the criticism towards the Soviet period heritage protection system become pology (cum laude). For her PhD she researches the audible and public interest in heritage conservation considerable. However the concept of urban heritage concept and protection of urban heritage in Lithuania and has published several articles on it. She has been and the means of its protection, though discussed a lot, were not embedded. After 1990, it resulted in many working as an architect since 2005, taking part in different voices ranging from the strict preservation to liberal “laissez-faire” and leaving their reflections architectural and urban heritage conservation projects. both in legislation, planning documents, and the old towns themselves. The post-war period is seen as an ambiguous time concerning the aspect of heritage public of Lithuania emerged with its capital in Kaunas while Vilnius and its surround- 1 John H. Stubbs and protection. The situation appeared to be even more complicated in the Baltic States ing regions belonged to Poland. The situation in the feld of heritage protection in Emily G. Makaš, Archi- that had been forced to join the USSR. The old capitals were not only the symbols of those two parts of the country was as diferent as it could probably be. In “Kaunas tectural Conservation in Europe and the Americas their independent past, but also did not meet any of the criteria set by the standards Lithuania” there was no law for cultural heritage protection and all the institutions cre- (Hoboken: John Wiley & of modern socialist planning. However, Lithuanian historiography remembers Soviet ated to promote or supervise it struggled due to poor funding, management, etc. The Sons, 2011), 260. Lithuanian urban heritage protection practice as a success, even as the leader and law for immovable heritage protection only came into force in 1940 under the Soviet 2 Jolanta Fedorovič, standard setter for the entire USSR. Thus, in this paper I will try to answer whether regime (even though it had been prepared in independent Lithuania). No urban her- “Nekilnojamojo kultūros paveldo apsauga Vilniaus this statement is exaggerated or not and how that system encompassing both legal itage protection plan had even been thought of and only a small number of architec- krašte 1920-1939 metais: framework and urban conservation projects developed to achieve such status. tural conservation projects (mostly in emergency cases) had been carried out. In the lenkiško paveldosaugos Vilnius Region the situation was quite the contrary. First of all, the general approach modelio raiška“, Lietuvos istorijos studijos 29 (2012): To show a little bit of a broader context, one must start with the interwar situation. For was completely diferent. The Polish heritage system was quite advanced and holistic: 91. most of that period, the current territory of Lithuania was divided: independent Re- as early as in 1928 the Law for Monuments Protection provided protection not only HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF HERITAGE LEGISLATION. BALANCE BETWEEN LAWS AND VALUES Janusauskaite 31 for individual buildings or sites but also for historic quarters and towns.1 Vilnius was tection of the Old Town? It is known however, that already in 1957 a visit occurred to 3 Marija Drėmaitė, Vaidas Petrulis and Jūratė Tutlytė, declared a “relic” in 1936 and a very complex regulation system was established not the former Czechoslovakia where two Lithuanian professors from Kaunas Polytechnic Architektūra sovietmečio only on particular monuments but on the entire central part of the old town.2 Institute attended a conference on urban conservation. They came back and wrote a Lietuvoje (Vilnius: Vilniaus dailės akademijos leidykla, really euphoric article in professional press describing the wide range of research and 2012), 65. It would have been expected for this valuable experience to be carried over in 1939 complex attitude with a goal to preserve not only individual monuments, but the en- when the Vilnius Region came back to Lithuania. In fact, this intention only lasted for 4 Jūratė Markevičienė, tirety of architecture and urbanism that had been applied in Czechoslovakian historic “Vilniaus kultūros paveldo a few months. As soon as 1941 came Soviet specialists whose task was set to create towns.7 It is as early as then that Czechoslovakia became a model to follow for many apsauga Lietuvos respub- a real socialist capital according to the Soviet standards.3 No wonder that Vilnius Old likos (1939-1940), Sovietų years. The head of Vilnius old town reconstruction project famous urbanist professor Sąjungos okupacijos town with its narrow courtyards, cobbled streets, and a large number of protected ir aneksijos pradžios 4 Kazimieras Šešelgis was also aware of this methodology (a colleague of him even re- ancient monuments was regarded as an obstacle rather than a proper capital city. membered that he had a half illegal copy of one project to be used as a model8)but it (1940-1941 ir 1944-1945) However those plans were interrupted by the German occupation. After WWII the ir nacistinės Vokietijos can’t be confrmed with certainty that there had been more visits before 1956. okupacijos (1941-1944) same Soviet city vision was remembered, still neglecting heritage but this time a little laikotarpiu,“ in Vilniaus bit less dramatic, asking to “combine architecture and history with the principles of The frst reconstruction project came into force in 1959 when the restorers’ version kultūrinis gyvenimas, 1939- 5 1945 (Vilnius: Lietuvių socialist planning”. Moreover, most of the Polish heritage specialists who had been was fnally approved. Its complexity, holistic approach and innovativeness in the So- literatūros ir tautosakos active in Vilnius before WWII expatriated or repatriated to Poland, so not only the con- viet context are noticeable. For example not only the main monuments, but also their institutas, 1999), 157. tinuity of heritage conservation tradition was lost, but also the shortage of architects environment and skyline were to be preserved, maintaining “general character”.9 The 5 Juozas Jurginis and Vladislovas Mikučianis, and conservators became obvious. project also sought to solve transport, engineering and even some social issues – i.e. Vilnius tarybų Lietuvos to fnd a compromise between preservation and development or modernisation as it sostinė (Vilnius: Valstybinė In 1950 the MRGD (Scientifc Workshop for Restoration and Production) was estab- politinės ir mokslinės lit- lished (according to central government decision they were established in most So- was understood at the time. The Old Town was to be restored in quarters and a few eratūros leidykla, 1956), 38. years later detailed projects for the frst quarters were initiated. viet countries, including Estonia), which soon became the main institution regard- 6 Ibid., 161. 7 Bronius Janavičius ing heritage conservation including plans or projects for urban heritage protection. Since then it’s been known in Lithuanian historiography as the frst project of this type Young specialists – architects, historians, engineers etc., originating mostly from rural and Henrikas Zvolinskas, and thus the