EUROPEAN SPATIAL RESEARCH AND POLICY Volume 22 2015 Number 2 10.1515/esrp-2015-0023 INVITEDARTICLES ARTICLES NicolaOlivier Francesco SYKES*,1 DOTTICarol LUDWIG*, Bas VAN**2 HEUR*, Colin C. WILLIAMS** MAPPINGDEFINING THE SHADOW AND MANAGING ECONOMY: THE SPATIAL HISTORIC VARIATIONS INURBAN THE USE LANDSCAPE: OF HIGH DENOMINATION REFLECTIONS ONBANK THE ENGLISH NOTES IN EXPERIENCE BRUSSELS AND SOME STORIES FROM LIVERPOOL Abstract. The aim of this paper is to map the spatial variations in the size of the shadow economy within Brussels. Reporting data provided by the National Bank of Belgium on the deposit of high Abstract. The period since the 1960s has been characterised by growing societal concern with urban denomination banknotes across bank branches in the 19 municipalities of the Brussels-Capital heritage protection and the development of legislative, fiscal and urban planning instruments that Region, the finding is that the shadow economy is concentrated in wealthier populations and not seek to ensure the protection and enhancement of historic buildings and environments. International in deprived or immigrant communities. The outcome is a call to transcend the association of the organisations such as UNESCO and European level documents such as the European Spatial Devel- shadow economy with marginalized groups and the wider adoption of this indirect method when opment Perspective (ESDP) have stressed the cultural and economic value of the ‘wise management measuring spatial variations in the shadow economy. of natural and cultural heritage’. Since the 1970s many cities have sought to redefine and regenerate Key words: informal economy, undeclared work, cash deposits, Brussels. themselves through a revalorisation of their past and the protection and enhancement of their historic urban landscapes. Urban heritage has thus often come to be seen as a component of the territorial capital of places, and often had a symbiotic relationship with the objective of urban regeneration. However, urban heritage is not a static concept and ideas about what constitutes heritage, the value 1.of INTRODUCTIONdifferent historic urban environments, and the contribution they can make to city development and regeneration continue to evolve. This paper reflects on this evolution in the context of the Eng- lish planning system and illustrates some key trends and issues surrounding urban heritage through Isa consideration the shadow of recenteconomy and ongoing concentrated heritage related in marginalized planning episodes areas in the andnorthern populations, English city suchof Liverpool. as in immigrant populations, and as a result, reduces the spatial disparities producedKey words : byheritage, the conservationformal economy? planning, conservationOr is it concentrated philosophy, Liverpool, in more historic affluent urban landscape. populations and, as a consequence, reinforces the disparities produced by the formal economy? This paper seeks answers to these questions. For many * Olivier SYKES, University of Liverpool, School of Environmental Sciences Gordon Stephenson * * Building, Nicola FrancescoDepartment DOTTI, of Geography Bas VAN and HEUR,Planning Vrije (Civic Universiteit Design), BrusselsL69 7ZQ, (VUB), England, Faculty e-mail: of [email protected], Cosmopolis, Department of Geography, Pleinlaan 2, BE-1050 Brussels, Belgium, e-mails: ** [email protected]; Carol LUDWIG, University [email protected] of Liverpool, .School of Environmental Sciences Gordon Stephenson ** Building, Colin C. Department WILLIAMS, of Sheffield Geography University and Planning Management (Civic School,Design), University L69 7ZQ, of England,Sheffield, e-mail: Conduit Road,[email protected] Sheffield S10 1FL, United Kingdom, e-mail: [email protected] Unauthenticated Download Date | 5/14/16 9:34 PM 10 Olivier Sykes, Carol Ludwig 1. INTRODUCTION Set within the context of wider international discourses on heritage matters, and influenced by recent European heritage agendas (CEC, 1999; Council of Europe, 2011), England has seen an infiltration of social and cultural concerns enter and subtly modify the normative heritage discourse. Consequently, the term ‘heritage’ as defined through English legislation, policy and guidance has undergone several periods of adjustment. The first section of this paper problematizes the concept from the English perspective, tracing its evolution and highlighting some broad trends in urban heritage management. In particular it exposes three key shifts: – a renewed focus on understanding significance and heritage values – wid- ening the scope from those confined to the grand, monumental objects of a settle- ment, to a more holistic heritage landscape which depicts the immaterial/intangi- ble aspects of cultural heritage; – a diversion away from expert-led authoritarian approaches towards more com- munity-led endeavours which focus on democratisation and widening participation; – a territorial shift of focus from issues of national importance and unity to notions of local distinctiveness and non-designated assets. This paper reflects on such shifts and the planning challenges they pose and considers some recent and ongoing heritage related planning episodes in the north- ern English city of Liverpool to unravel some palpable implications for planning practice. 2. WHAT IS ENGLISH ‘HERITAGE’? Like many other European heritage systems, heritage conservation applied through the English planning system has traditionally been regarded as an elitist, white, middle-class activity enjoyed by a self-selecting, well-educated and artistically literate social group. Concerned with aesthetics, architectural quality and age, this art-historical emphasis can be traced back to the 19th. century, being prevalent in the writings of Ruskin (1989 [1890]) and Morris (1877), and famously contested within the criticisms developed by Samuel (1994) and Hewison (1987). The birth of the conservation ethic, associated with European nation-building and pride, paved the way for a set of deeply-embedded assumptions about the nature of Eng- lish heritage. These assumptions were to become naturalised, shaping and mould- ing English legislation, policy and guidance for the historic built environment. To understand the rise of these assumptions, appreciating the convergence of heritage with planning is essential. In England and Wales, the Town and Coun- try Planning Acts of 1945 and 1947 were the first to marry the two by introducing Unauthenticated Download Date | 5/14/16 9:34 PM Defining and Managing the Historic Urban Landscape 11 a duty to compile statutory lists of buildings. Such concerns had 19th century roots, (particularly in the ‘Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildingsʼ, SPAB) but the impetus was provided by the ubiquitous demolition and rebuilding schemes follow- ing the Second World War (Tait and While, 2009). The statutory list takes the form of an inventory, based around a hierarchy of ‘listing’ at Grade I (buildings of ex- ceptional importance, around 2.5% of all listed buildings), Grade II* (particularly important buildings of more than special interest), or Grade II (buildings of special interest). The architectural or historic significance of the building(s) is the prime de- terminant of inclusion in the list. This significance is stringently protected through a legal requirement to obtain listed building consent alongside planning permission for any proposed works or alteration (see ‘Principles of Selectionʼ, DCMS, 2010). Given the focus on ‘the building(s)’, particular emphasis is given to special meth- ods of construction and/or aesthetic elements that lend them their special architec- tural character (Turnpenny, 2004). This approach to listing generally means that in- dividual iconic buildings tend to be prioritised over more modest buildings (While, 2007, p. 658). Moreover, selection is most likely ‘to favour the spectacular over the mundane, the large over the small, the beautiful over the ugly and the unusual over the commonplaceʼ (Ashworth, 1997, p. 97). This traditional ideological representa- tion of heritage provides limited space for alternative understandings of heritage which focus on subaltern/vernacular heritage and/or emotional content. 3. MOUNTING CRITICISMS OF ENGLISH ‘HERITAGE’ Such practices of heritage conservation applied through the English planning system have however been fiercely criticised. They have been described as immutable and one-dimensional, centred on ‘elite/consensus history, nationalism, monumentality, tangibility, age and aestheticsʼ (Smith, 2006, p. 11). Scholars argue that this author- ised heritage discourse (AHD) privileges the grand, material aspects of heritage val- ue, whilst simultaneously excluding all conflicted or non-core accounts of heritage (Smith, 2006; Waterton, 2010). Indeed, there have been mounting criticisms that Western heritage is imagined as being inherently locked within the physical fabric of built forms (Byrne, 1991; Graham, 2002) and that instead, heritage should be under- stood ‘within the discourses we construct about itʼ (Smith, 2006, p. 11). Smith goes on to state that there is, ‘no such thing as heritageʼ, arguing that the subject of our heritage ‘gaze’ (Urry, 1990), is, ‘not so much a “thing” as a set of values and mean- ingsʼ (Smith, 2006, p. 11). Within this critical context, it is possible to observe some key changes over the past few decades which have repositioned how heritage is considered through the English planning system today.