|
|
For debate in the Standing Committee see Rule 15 of the Rules of Procedure
Pour débat à la Commission permanente – Voir article 15 du Règlement
Doc. 8827
19 September 2000
Disused hospitals and military buildings
Report
Committee on Culture and Education
Rapporteur: Mr Jacques Legendre, France, European Democratic Group
Summary
The Assembly notes that throughout Europe disused hospitals, military barracks or installations and administrative or judicial buildings are threatened. Although not all of them can be saved, some of these great public buildings deserve to be preserved for they are a significant part of our historic heritage.
It is appropriate to consider the conservation of these buildings, which are no longer used or are likely to become redundant. Finding socially beneficial and economically justifiable uses for them requires however imagination, extensive co-operation and, above all, realistic financial measures. The first step proposed by the Assembly is to carry out a general survey of those buildings concerned that are of historical or architectural significance.
I. Draft recommendation
1. The Assembly recalls its Resolution 916 (1989) on redundant religious buildings and notes that other types of building are also threatened with obsolescence whether for technical reasons, in the case of hospitals, or because of the restructuring of the armed forces in the case of military barracks and installations (see appendix).
2. The Assembly points out that, in most European towns, these establishments, along with disused administrative and judicial buildings, form a significant part of the historic heritage. Although not all of them can be saved, some of these great public buildings deserve to be preserved.
3. Many former hospitals, orphanages and hospices were housed in splendid buildings, which can now be regarded as historic monuments. However, they are not only important for aesthetic reasons, but also because of the role they played in the actual formation of towns and in the development of urban sociability. Even today they continue to bear visible witness of long-standing solidarity shown towards the sick and the poor.
4. However, technical progress is increasingly difficult to accommodate in buildings hundreds of years old, some even dating back to the Middle Ages,. In most cases, it is only possible to install operating theatres that meet current standards or individual bedrooms and bathrooms by making fundamental alterations that completely change the architectural features of these buildings.
5. Meanwhile, military barracks and installations are not only of great architectural interest, but also have a distinct historical dimension, testifying both to civil liberties and to a community’s or a nation’s desire to defend itself. Many of them also bear the mark of sovereign powers, whether royal or feudal, and of the vicissitudes of history.
6. Similar problems arise with the conversion of military barracks and installations. Moreover, the general reduction in the number of active servicemen means that many huge military complexes are becoming redundant.
7. One of the Council of Europe’s tasks is to safeguard the common heritage of its member states. However, the Assembly is aware that the general public will only appreciate the preservation of these buildings if expenditure on restoration is aimed at making them suitable for activities that are socially beneficial.
8. The Assembly therefore recommends that the Committee of Ministers organise from time to time conferences at which experience of the restoration of these buildings and their conversion for the benefit of society can be exchanged, and promote the creation of a database on this subject.
9. The Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers invite member states to:
i. carry out, as quickly as possible, a general survey of hospitals, hospices, orphanages and other care or charity institutions, military buildings and installations and administrative and judicial buildings, which are of historical or architectural significance;
ii. include nineteenth and twentieth century buildings in this survey as well as older constructions;
iii. ensure effective protection of the original structures and furnishings of such buildings pending their future conversion;
iv. make building conservation and conversion part of local planning strategies with a view to preserving buildings that warrant protection and avoiding the construction of new buildings whenever a disused building can be converted for socially beneficial activities without detriment to its historical and architectural features;
v. provide funds or tax concessions for the restoration, repair and maintenance of these buildings, as well as effective legal protection when they are owned by, or when ownership is transferred to, private individuals;
vi. encourage the production of traditional building materials and the learning and handing down of the crafts and architectural skills required for the restoration of these buildings;
vii. encourage the inclusion of hospitals and military buildings with historical or architectural significance in European cultural itineraries, and ensure that the proceeds of cultural tourism are channelled into the preservation of the buildings visited by tourists;
viii. associate the local population with rehabilitation by informing them of the importance and interest of such action;
10. The Assembly also welcomes the Europa Nostra Prize for the conservation and enhancement of Europe’s architectural and natural heritage: one of the four criteria for the award of the Prize is precisely the “restoration of old buildings for new uses, whilst preserving their original character”.
II. Explanatory memorandum by Mr Legendre
A. Foreword
The Sub-Committee on the Cultural Heritage (of the Committee on Culture and Education) held a hearing, in co-operation with the French Senate, on the conversion of disused hospitals and military buildings in Paris on 24 March 2000.
On 23 March the sub-committee visited a number of hospitals and military buildings in Cambrai that had been converted by the municipal authorities. For example, we visited the Château de Selles, a former military hospital which has been converted into law courts, the Storehouse, which has been converted into 52 local authority flats and an exhibition and concert hall, and the citadel, where the Balagny arsenal has been turned into a sports hall and the officers’ quarters into flats. At the citadel site, we also visited a heritage conservation project involving young people undergoing social rehabilitation.
The Paris hearing dealt in particular with the situation in France, especially that of hospitals. However, the participants agreed that all Council of Europe member states experienced similar problems and that the conclusions could therefore be generally applied. The sub-committee members thought that a similar approach should be adopted to other administrative and judicial buildings, such as prisons.
B. Introduction
Hospitals and military buildings have the same historical and symbolic significance throughout Europe and all policy-makers are faced with similar problems. The same is true of other major public buildings such as disused administrative and judicial buildings.
Medical advances have shortened hospitalisation periods, while technological progress, higher standards of comfort and better hygiene entail the radical transformation of buildings, some of which are centuries old. At the same time, the switch to professional armies in many countries is freeing up vast complexes and raising questions about their future. Many of these buildings are of great value and were built using the most modern techniques available at the time. They are also political statements, testifying to the degree of benevolence shown by those in power, or to their strength. Since towns first emerged, they have been defining elements of urban planning in European civilisation.
For all these reasons, it is appropriate to consider the conservation of such buildings, which are no longer used or are likely to become redundant, since they are historic monuments and, at the same time, present an opportunity for a type of urban planning more likely to meet public approval. Hospitals and defence structures often take up enormous areas in the very centre of towns, areas that are much sought after and subject to considerable land-use pressures. Their conservation requires imagination, extensive co-operation and, above all, realistic financial measures. Socially beneficial and economically justifiable uses must be found.
What can be done with old hospitals and redundant barracks or forts? Universities, as in Milan? Modern art museums, as in Madrid, or conference centres, as in Malta? What future can be found for the splendid buildings of the Venice Arsenal? We should not concern ourselves solely with a few prestigious buildings, but also with all those less important buildings that are witnesses to the urban past, essential features of the urban landscape to which the public is often very attached. In its Resolution 916 (1989) on redundant religious buildings, the Assembly stressed that a new use for a disused religious building should be compatible with its original function. This is not a problem with the types of building with which we are concerned.
The hospital heritage
The promotion of the hospital heritage is not a new issue, since hospitals have been obliged to adapt themselves for centuries: for a very long time leprosy hospitals accounted for 40% of all hospitals. Several phenomena are now occurring simultaneously and bringing out both the urgency and the scale of the need: the growing rate at which hospitals are becoming functionally obsolete; towns need room for their spatial reorganisation, while hospital grounds are vast and highly sought after; and, finally, the demand for a better quality of life.
Few institutions have such a long history as hospitals, the first of which appeared in the 6th century. Few institutions convey so many values, such generosity, solidarity, kindness or nobility of soul. In the past, present and future, the hospital is the place where man is faced with the only real problems in life, namely suffering and death. In the past, hospitals were also religious places; in some periods, extremely beautiful items such as paintings, valuable objects and furnishings have been donated to them. And few institutions have such strong ties with the community - ties of affection and sometimes ties that have been fostered by necessity. Hospitals are thus entities which combine political, protective, social, health-care and economic functions. Their influence now extends beyond their walls and spreads throughout towns. They have always been sites of urban cultural identification, as demonstrated by the success of the Heritage Days and the commemoration of the 150th anniversary of the public health service in France, or the difficulties encountered by all governments when they attempt to close small-town hospitals. It would be a serious error to overlook this element of identification.
The problem of heritage conservation is especially pertinent given that these buildings embrace all architectural styles, from 17th century structures and Pasteurian pavilion hospitals to single-building hospitals and modern hospital “streets”. This is an immense responsibility. There is much at stake since derelict land is increasingly being used in urban revitalisation and business life seems to be returning to town centres. How can real estate begot at? The only land currently available is the large areas vacated by the army and hospitals.
Technical expertise is increasing and technical equipment itself is becoming increasingly sophisticated and more rapidly obsolete. Modern hospitals will in future be versatile and adaptable. At the same time, however, where there has been a tendency in the 1970s and 1980s to distinguish between health care provision and medico-social aspects, it now seems preferable to link these two aspects more closely: just as in the Middle Ages, hospitals are also having to respond to social deprivation and the pathologies associated with it.
Regional healthcare programmes, part of the reorganisation of all public hospitals, have been entrusted with the task of acting as reference points whilst also ensuring that neighbourhood hospitals are integrated into the urban fabric. One might also mention the new requirements resulting from an ageing population and the latest rules on accessibility for disabled persons – too few hospitals meet the required standards. The issue of protection and conservation arises for the 19th and 20th-century heritage. Agreements and partnerships make it possible to ensure the regular upkeep and maintenance of the heritage that is already protected. However, old buildings that were previously used for medical activities pose particular problems. It is increasingly difficult to keep up with developments in medical technology when using historic buildings that are no longer adapted to such use.
However, the hospitals of the future are not just a question of technical equipment; they have other functions, such as providing support, contacts and accommodation and carrying out preventative work – activities that can easily be housed in old buildings. A major proportion of the built heritage has now become obsolete, but it is essential to take a longer term by distinguishing between the different types of hospital buildings and sites concerned. Conservation of a building in the strict sense should not mean overlooking a site’s reorganisation needs in an urban planning context. The position and role of hospitals as enclosed areas, oases of calm in urban environments, where life is more and more stressful, should be borne in mind. Certain projects reflect this reality by maintaining medical activities in renovated buildings and simultaneously opening up the grounds to the public and local residents.
If the correct approach is adopted, conservation of old buildings is not an obstacle for contemporary projects: on the contrary, they contribute an architectural quality that is very difficult to create from scratch.
C. Military buildings (in France)
The Ministry of Defence is the biggest landowner in France, owning 266,000 hectares, or 0.5% of the national territory. Just over 1% of this area is occupied by buildings. Its assets are diverse, relatively widely distributed and most likely to be in the centres of small and medium-sized towns or their immediate periphery. The switch to professional defence services has been truly revolutionary.
The reduction in the size of the armed forces has important consequences for the Ministry’s property and has been accompanied by successive waves of restructuring. These are primarily intended to maintain the armies’ operational capacity, but consideration is given to their economic, social and development impact. The Ministry of Defence has been preparing for the closure of its buildings since 1996 so as to avoid sudden changes in land occupancy that frequently result in site deterioration and the emergence of derelict land. The conversion of the defence authorities’ buildings is characterised by a willingness to involve as many local partners as possible and to take account of the potential and architectural value of the sites. Economic realities also play their part.
The reforms aside, the Ministry of Defence remains a major landowner and must continue to assume its responsibilities with regard to maintenance, protection and development. It is attempting to preserve as much of the heritage’s architectural and commemorative value as possible and collaborating with the Ministry of Culture over certain prestigious sites such as the Invalides, the Ecole militaire, the Brest citadel and the fortifications in Briançon. It is not overlooking sites of lesser importance, which it intends to preserve and develop. A balance has to be found between heritage concerns and economic and budgetary necessities. Although the reduction in funding and land occupancy that has accompanied professionalisation is a definite handicap, the reuse of military property is not incompatible with heritage preservation.
The Vauban fort in Lille houses a university. The fort at Les Rousses in the Jura has been economically regenerated in an unusual way and now houses a cheese factory and a spectacles factory. The Grands-Maisons barracks in Metz have been converted into housing. There are also plans to implement a housing programme in the Grammont district of
Saint-Germain, although this will be expensive. We must accept that not everything can be saved and preserved. However, within this context of constraints, particularly on the financial level, the Ministry of Defence is attempting to identify priorities. For example, it has commissioned a study to list the fortified military heritage and examine its potential for tourism.
However, consideration also needs to be given to countless barracks, many dating from the 19th century, which do not have a recognised cultural value under the current criteria and are due to be demolished.
D. Future strategies
How can this issue be dealt with? Firstly, an inventory of the buildings concerned must be drawn up, since the value of most member States’ hospital and military heritage is currently unknown.
In order to carry out the vital task of assessing the value and historic interest of buildings, regional monitoring and identification units should be set up. The next step is to prepare for the closure of buildings as early as possible, so as to avoid being confronted with the problem on the day a building is evacuated. This should go hand in hand with the planning of towns’ own building needs.
It is then necessary to prepare realistic projects. Buildings need to be put to appropriate uses. Comparative studies of cost must also be carried out, national experiences taken into account and international exchange promoted through the establishment of databases and use of the Internet. Of course, the social benefit of building conversions (appropriation of the heritage by the public, participation in conversion projects) must also be taken into consideration.
The final requirement is to find the necessary funding.
To sum up, to do nothing now would mean perpetuating the inappropriate use of buildings and passing on the inevitable costs to future generations. Of course, taking action imposes some difficult choices and a lot of work, but there is no other way.
E. Conclusion
Europe has a vast heritage of hospitals, fortifications, barracks and prisons, which poses an enormous challenge to planners. Clearly, not everything can be preserved. During the Paris hearing, examples of successful conversions in France, Italy and Lithuania were described. Others could also have been mentioned: the Queen Sophia Museum of Contemporary Art in Madrid is housed in an 18th century former hospital, while in Coimbra a university is now located in a large barracks.
Not long ago, the first idea that came to mind when thinking of how to restore disused buildings was to create a museum. However, museums cannot be opened everywhere; Europe should not become a collection of museums. Other solutions must be found to revitalise the heritage and the Council of Europe can play a pioneering role in this field. The right to remember the past must be combined with the right to innovate and the Council can help to promote an exchange of experience in these areas.
There is one determining factor: political will, which is the only thing that can ensure that restoration of these buildings is a priority for political authorities. Here too, the Council of Europe can take action so that awareness is raised throughout the member States regarding the task that lies ahead.
Generally speaking, prizes are good ways of encouraging politicians and the general public to pay greater attention to these issues. In this context, it should be noted that one of the four types of project considered for the Europa Nostra Prize for the protection and enhancement of Europe’s architectural and natural heritage is the “restoration of old buildings for new uses, whilst preserving their original character”. The Assembly can only welcome this.
APPENDIX
Summary of the parliamentary hearing
“Conversion of disused hospitals and military buildings:
a European issue?”
Paris, Senate - 24 March 2000
The hearing was opened at 10 am, by Mr Hadjidemetriou (Cyprus), Chairman of the Sub-Committee on the Cultural Heritage.
Mr Jacques Legendre (France), Rapporteur for the Committee on Education and Culture, expressed his pleasure at being present and noted that the French Senate was a good example of building conversion: it had originally been constructed for a French queen.
Almost ten years previously, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe had put forward guidelines for the conversion and conservation of disused religious buildings, but his report would deal with hospital and military buildings. The historic and symbolic nature of these buildings was similar throughout Europe, and all political leaders were faced with comparable problems. Medical advances had reduced hospitalisation periods, while technological progress, higher standards of comfort and better hygiene entailed the radical transformation of buildings that had frequently stood for centuries. At the same time, the switch to professional armies in many countries was freeing up vast complexes and raising questions about their future. Many of the buildings concerned were of great value and had been constructed using the most modern techniques available at the time. They were also political statements, testifying to the authorities' more or less genuine compassion, or their power. Since towns had emerged, hospitals had been defining elements of typical urban planning in European civilisation.
For all these reasons, it was appropriate to give consideration to conserving buildings that were no longer used or were likely to fall out of use, since they were historical monuments and, at the same time, presented an opportunity for urban planning that took greater account of the public's wishes. Hospitals and defence structures frequently occupied large terrains in the very centre of towns, areas which were much sought after and subject to considerable land-use pressures. Their conservation required imagination, extensive co-operation and, above all, realistic financial measures. Socially beneficial and economically justifiable uses had to be found.
What could be done with old hospitals and redundant barracks or forts? Museums of modern art, as in Madrid, or congress centres, as in Malta? What future could be found for the splendid buildings of the Venice Arsenal? It went without saying that the consultation process should examine not only prestigious buildings, but also all those less important buildings that were witnesses to the urban past, essential features of the urban landscape to which the public was frequently very attached. In this respect, the speaker mentioned the work being carried out in Cambrai, the town where he was mayor.
Mr Legendre was aware that the subject would not be exhausted during this meeting. He hoped that there would be an exchange of information about different experiences, which he would use to improve the report he was preparing.
Mr Maurice Rochaix, President of the Society of the History of Hospitals (France), said that he was honoured to discuss the conservation and promotion of the hospital-related heritage in such a setting. The problem was not a new one, since hospitals had been obliged to adapt for centuries. Leprosy hospitals, for example, had for many years accounted for 40% of all hospitals. In his opinion, several phenomena were now occurring simultaneously and bringing out both the urgency and scale of the need: the growing rate at which hospitals were becoming functionally obsolete (patients now required 100m² of floor space each, compared to 10m² for centuries, and equipment occupied 40-50% of floor space compared with 2-3% in the past); towns needed to revitalise their territories, and hospital grounds were vast and sought-after; and, finally, demands for a better quality of life.
Few institutions had such a long history as hospitals, the first of which had appeared in the 6th century. In the past, present and future, hospitals were and would be the place where man was faced with the only real problems in life, namely suffering and death. In the past, hospitals were also religious places: in certain periods, extremely valuable items had been donated to them, such as paintings, valuable objects and furnishings. Finally, few institutions had such strong ties with the community, sometimes those of affection, but sometimes fostered by necessity. Hospitals were thus political, protective, social, health-related and economic entities at one and the same time. Their influence now extended beyond their walls and spread throughout towns. They had always been sites of urban cultural identification, as demonstrated by the success of heritage days and the commemoration of the 150th anniversary of the public health services in France, or the difficulties encountered by all governments when they attempted to close small-town hospitals. It would be a serious error to overlook this aspect of identification.
How should the problem be dealt with? The speaker listed four essential steps. Firstly, an inventory should be drawn up, since the value of the hospital heritage was currently unknown. Mr Lecat, who had been a good minister and responsible for the inventory of hospitals in the Bourgogne region, had laid considerable stress on this point. Progress had been made, but there was still much work to be done. For its part, the Society for the History of Hospitals was attempting to get the ball rolling. It was hoped that the use of agreements between the Culture and Health ministries would enable the inventory to be completed within the next five years. Noting that hospital directors rather than mayors had responsibility for the hospital heritage, he suggested that the institutions which trained them should be made aware of the issue
.
Next, evaluation was needed, and regional monitoring and identification units should therefore be set up. However, this was a complex task, and not simply because properties were becoming obsolete ever more rapidly. It was easy to evaluate the Hôtel Dieu in Lyon, but much more difficult to evaluate the Granges blanches, undoubtedly the most beautiful surviving pavilion complex of the Pasteur type. This hospital did not correspond to modern medical requirements, but it could not be touched: for example, three years had been required to obtain authorisation for safety alterations to a chimney.
The next step was to take action as early as possible, so as to avoid reacting only when hospitals were evacuated. Next, it was necessary to put forward realistic projects - one proposal had entailed converting Lyon's Hôtel Dieu into a supermarket. Uses had to be found for these sites that would take account of the values that they represented and of the public's attachment to them: law courts, as in Cambrai, universities, as in Montpellier, Public Archives, as in Limoges, or catering colleges, as in Saulieu. Who was to be responsible for thinking about these issues and preparing decisions? The answer was all urban entities, the mayor, associations, the préfet; and it should be done as early as possible, otherwise money would be wasted and lost, to the detriment of the sick. The speaker urged future hospital directors to take a long-term perspective.
The final requirement was to find the necessary funding. As the speaker noted, where there was an absence of will, excuses could always be found, whether lack of time or lack of money.
He pointed out that when the State had rebuilt hospitals in the 1970s, some had campaigned to obtain even the statutory 1% spending on the arts, but had been told that while art might be appropriate for schools, it was certainly not suitable for health establishments. This had been a serious mistake: art contributed to patients' well-being. It was time for the state to make an effort. For their part, local authorities were prepared to participate only if they were involved in projects that would bring them specific benefits. Certain hospitals had ample resources and could provide part of the funding. European funding would also be welcome.
In conclusion, Mr Rochaix said that to do nothing now would mean perpetuating the inappropriate use of buildings and passing on the inevitable costs to future generations. Of course, taking action imposed certain difficult choices and a lot of work, but there was no other way. The Society for the History of Hospitals was attempting to contact all decision-makers, to find out their position and inform them about their responsibilities. The speaker welcomed the Council of Europe's intervention, which could help all those concerned to accept their duty to remember and rediscover their roots, and could help Europe itself to take cognisance of its cultural specificity and riches, which current and future generations could rightly be proud of.
Having thanked Mr Rochaix for evoking the values underlying modern hospitals, Mr Edouard Couty, Director of Hospitals (French Ministry of Health) said that the Ministry of Employment, Solidarity and Health had taken a close interest in recent years in the problem of converting hospital buildings and had signed an agreement on this subject with the Ministry of Culture in 1993. The agreement had taken some time to be implemented, since systematic work on preparing inventories was not begun until 1998, but had resulted in a detailed questionnaire, responses to which had been received from half the establishments contacted, or 600 institutions, hospital complexes, teaching hospitals, local hospitals and former nursing homes.
All these establishments appeared to possess movable property, ranging from the most pedestrian items to works of art, paintings, sculptures and silverware. Almost 400 owned real estate, which they did not always know how to protect. Many had not taken advantage of the various protection procedures, such as classification or listing, due to a lack of contacts with the regional agencies for cultural affairs (DRACs). A high proportion of real estate (80%) was still used for health-related purposes; some buildings, such as chapels, had conserved their religious functions (about 100 were consecrated) or cultural roles (exhibitions, concerts); 73% were in a good state of repair, and a quarter were in poor repair or required renovation work.
What lessons could be learnt from this still unfinished investigation? It was clearly appropriate to recommend that establishments be more aware of the state of their assets and draw up inventories and classify buildings in co-operation with the Ministry of Culture's departments. They could also be encouraged to make better use of the current funding opportunities and to draw up maintenance plans for the buildings. Local authorities should also be encouraged to take an interest in certain projects, and various examples of good practice should be used more widely.
For its part, the state was providing support for this movement through the agreement on "cultural life in hospitals" concluded between the ministries of Health and Culture: this had released specific funding and resulted in job creation (including jobs for young people), with a view to promoting cultural activities and heritage protection in every establishment. Twinning arrangements were also being developed between hospitals and cultural entities such as museums and theatres, and more than 150 such arrangements already existed. Decision-makers had recognised the value of cultural activity in hospitals, both from a therapeutic point of view and in terms of the hospital's integration into the wider community - not to mention the fact that such activities were a means of providing hospital staff with access to culture. Establishments should be encouraged to take account of the future of heritage-related assets when preparing their long-term projects.
Mr Guy Bernfeld, Director of the National Assistance Heritage in Paris(AP-HP), noted that the AP-HP, with 41 hospital complexes, or 3.5m m² across 1500 hectares, was the largest hospital consortium in Europe. Given that this total included all architectural styles, from 18th century structures, such as Laennec, Saint-Louis or Bicêtre, to monobloc hospitals (Beaujon) and modern hospital "streets" like Robert-Debré and Georges-Pompidou, via Pasteurian pavilions such as those at Cochin and Bicêtre, the problem of heritage conservation was especially pertinent. This was an immense responsibility. In addition, the AP-HP had begun a major restructuring programme, involving the closure of three hospitals and the opening of Georges-Pompidou. The programme was due to be implemented over ten years, and would bring the question of derelict hospital land into sharp focus. There was much at stake: derelict land was increasing being used in urban revitalisation and, at the same time, there was a perceptible return of business life to town centres. How was real estate to be obtained? The only land reserves currently to be had were the large territories made available by the army and hospitals.
At the same time, modern hospital architecture had to evolve: hospitals were no longer places where people stayed for any length of time, but places of transition (the average duration of a hospital stay was becoming ever shorter), where effectiveness depended on the technical facilities available. Out-patient medicine was becoming increasingly important, as were emergency services, and network-like structures were becoming more common: hospitals were increasingly acting as pivots in urban health care networks, and this required a different kind of spatial organisation.
Technical expertise was increasing, and technical equipment itself was becoming increasingly sophisticated and more rapidly obsolete. Modern hospitals would now have to be versatile and adaptable. At the same time, however, where there had been a tendency in the 1970s and 1980s to distinguish between health care provision and medico-social aspects, it now seemed preferable to link these two aspects more closely: just as in the Middle Ages, hospitals were also having to respond to social deprivation and the pathologies associated with it. The regional health care programmes, part of the re-organisation of all public hospitals, had been entrusted with the task of acting as reference points whilst also ensuring that neighbourhood hospitals were integrated into the urban fabric. One might also mention the new requirements resulting from an ageing population and the latest rules on accessibility for disabled persons - too few hospitals met the required standards.
In Paris, 11 hectares were about to be made available, resulting in the biggest urban programme apart from the Rive Gauche project. It would be implemented by the City of Paris, the State and the public hospitals. The aim was to conserve and modernise, while not attempting to preserve everything. What did the hospitals expect? Firstly, good management, which implied clear decision-making by politicians. Although the hospital was the land owner, political figures were responsible for presenting long-term conversion projects. Fifteen years had been needed to complete the Georges-Pompidou hospital. The time had come to start work on conversion projects.
Hospitals also expected rational planning that took account of the guidelines in the new urbanism law, and consequently gave priority to social balance, public-sector housing, cultural activities, balanced planning arrangements agreed between the city and the State, and appropriate funding. Hospitals should not bear the brunt of conversion. The land being made available was very valuable, and the money raised from its sale should be used to finance hospital modernisation and heritage maintenance and conservation. Nonetheless, it was not the hospitals' task to fund social balance. It was important to be aware that the 50% rule, (i.e. 50% of the land to be used for public housing) meant that the territory lost 50% of its value. The public health budget was likely to lose out as a result of the regulations on financing social balance.
The AP-HP was in favour of a conservation policy for the hospital heritage: it had set up an architecture committee, which was considering future conservation and architectural policies and the role of architecture in hospitals, with Mr François Barré. It was thus committed to a progressive architectural policy; however, without beating about the bush, it was faced with a funding problem: hospitals should not be forced to assume the costs of hospital conversions without additional help. This was a question of first principles for politicians and the government.
Ms Anne Pétillot, architect at the National Assistance Hospitals of Paris, pointed out that the AP-HP possessed a sizeable historical heritage, scattered over 41 sites, 13 of which, dating from the 17th to the 18th centuries, were already protected. However, the issue of protection and conservation arose for the 19th and 20th-century heritage. Agreements and partnerships made it possible to ensure the regular upkeep and maintenance of the heritage that was already protected. However, the AP-HP faced particular difficulties with old buildings that were used for medical activities. It was increasingly difficult to keep up with developments in medical technology when using historic buildings that were no longer adapted to such use. At the same time, hospitals of the future could not be reduced to technical equipment alone: they would have other functions, such as providing support, contacts and accommodation and carrying out preventative work, and these activities could easily be housed in old buildings. A major proportion of the built heritage had now become obsolete, but it was essential to take a more long-term view, by distinguishing between the hospital buildings and sites concerned, as the Ecole Nationale des Ponts had done in its research. Conservation of a building in the strict sense should not mean over-looking a site's re-organisation needs in an urban planning context. The position and role of hospitals as enclosed areas, oases of calm in towns and urban environments, where life was more and more stressful, should be borne in mind. Certain projects reflected this reality by maintaining medical activities in renovated buildings, and simultaneously opening up the territory to the public and local residents. The AP-HP was studying this option with the Agence des Espaces Verts.
Ms Pétillot supported the idea of a European inventory. The AP-HP had already begun to draw up its own, by setting up a heritage management database that classed buildings according to a pragmatic typology. However, it was currently impossible to prepare an exhaustive inventory. Given that the European models were similar, each country's experience would be of value to the others. A programme was currently being launched as part of the Culture 2000 project, intended specifically to increase public knowledge of the hospital heritage, which was still associated with suffering and death and therefore not much visited. Much work had to be done in terms of public information and awareness.
Mr Jean Castex, architect (France), thought that the first item of discussion should be the town. The French Revolution had dismantled the national assets and replaced them with sectioned-off streets, more suited to bourgeois houses. This process had been accompanied by the disappearance of large urban estates: sections of the 5th arrondissement in Paris were a good example. Fortunately, some monasteries, such as the Couvent des Cordeliers, had been preserved and converted into educational institutions. If urban planners wished to redevelop towns in their current locations, opting for geographical closeness rather than distance and thereby rejecting the segregated model represented by new towns, they needed structures of all sizes, large, medium and small buildings, i.e., the diversity that constituted a city's wealth; they needed all these enclosed areas that were once monasteries or private homes and were now hospitals and barracks.
Reminding the participants that he was a lecturer in an architecture school and involved in the conversion of large complexes, Mr Castex said that the modern era was one of commemoration, in which the framework in which we understood the meaning of history was changing: the "bird's eye" view of history was giving way to a patchwork of partial memories, such as patients' history or doctors' history. The conversion of large buildings had always posed problems. Mr Castex cited the example of the Laennec hospital in Paris, on which he and his students were working. Laennec was an attractive 17th-century building composed of two intersecting parts in the shape of a cross, with a chapel in the centre. How could historical vestiges, largely obscured over time, be uncovered? Was it possible to identify the hospital's fundamental structure and give it fresh prominence without intensive historical research? The project was aimed at conserving this large urban territory, where people could breathe freely, and to make it a site of cultural interest. The speaker also cited the example of the Versailles hospital, which had been converted into an Appeal Court, and commented that towns could not work against their own interests: on the contrary, conserving such complexes would enrich them. He pleaded for an approach that took account of the air quality in towns, which he considered essential.
Mr Jean-Michel Leniaud, art historian, lecturer at the Ecole des Chartes, said that the draft resolution represented major progress. Recalling the tragic fate of Porthos in Le Vicomte de Bragelonne, who died under the rocks of the Belle-Île citadel because he could not think and act simultaneously, he welcomed the fact that after thirty years of discussions, circulars and proposed inventories, the time for action seemed to have finally come. It was more than time.
Mr Leniaud wished to draw attention to five aspects of the 19th century hospital. Firstly, hospital furnishings were under threat, whether bequeathed, belonging to congregations or placed in hospital museums. Examples included the Montpellier medical faculty, whose historical furnishings had been squandered, and the church congregation that had recently sold off all the objects it had possessed since its setting-up in the 17th century. In the latter case, the département had been too late in expressing an interest: it was regrettable that the public authorities had not anticipated this unfortunate dispersal.
Secondly, the 19th century had been an important one in terms of hospital activity, and yet no-one had so far written an architectural history of hospitals, something that had been done in the United Kingdom. In particular, the architecture of psychiatric hospitals was extremely homogenous and very interesting, but under threat. Psychiatric hospitals had often been designed as towns with interconnecting areas and were integrated wholes. Charenton, for example, was under daily threat from piecemeal developments introduced for safety reasons. What was to be done with the chapel at Abel de Pujol? Re-structuring programmes threatened the existence of the Mans psychiatric hospital, built according to plans originally intended for a city on the Adriatic coast, and consequently representing a specific form of utopia. The pressure for land was too strong.
Fourthly, what purpose should these buildings serve? It seemed that heritage and utility were opposed and that conservation was the antithesis of modernisation. Yet experience clearly showed that professionals discussing utility were demonstrating an extremely narrow perspective. Academics - Hellenists, cultivated people - had been known to demand that a large painting or a mounted canvas be removed to make room for library shelves. Yet nothing was more fragile than functional architecture, since it became obsolete very quickly, and it was regrettable to see entire chunks of heritage sacrificed and mutilated for the sake of a modernism that would not last ten years.
Who was responsible for hospital architecture? Mayors, as the presidents of hospitals' administrative boards and decision-makers in urban planning issues, were responsible for giving consideration to buildings' heritage value and their "green lung" role in towns. There had been plans to extend the Charles-de-Gualle bridge into a boulevard, an urban motorway that would cross the glass canopy of Austerlitz station and continue straight along to the square containing the statue of Pinel releasing psychiatric patients from their chains that stood in front of Salpetrière's magnificent 17th door. This destructive project had been abandoned, but for how long? The question would one day reoccur, and was a matter for the municipal councillors.
Mr Pierre Riboulet, architect-town planner (France), used slides to present a 1993 study on the sites of la Salpetrière in Paris and the construction of the Limoges library. The initial plans for la Salpetrière had been drawn up by Le Vau, who had designed them around the attractive Saint-Louis chapel. He had imagined two square courtyards surrounded by buildings, separated by terraces and gardens that descended to the Seine. Three sides of the first square had been built, while the second was abandoned and La Pitié was built on the upper terrace. Little by little, all the gardens were sectioned off, with no consideration given to site's history and value. The 33-hectare territory, the largest hospital complex in Europe, was now completely occupied. The site is very badly organised but had considerable potential.
Under the master plan drawn up in 1993, the listed historical section (the little known Saint-Louis chapel, which could be used for cultural events, the Cour d'honneur buildings and the Promenade de la Hauteur) would be used for non-hospital functions and would be open to the public. Its composite nature was to be preserved. The south section could be converted into a large modern hospital with a separate entrance, and there was a possibility of a link with the Tolbiac-Masséna renovation programme. The master plan also provided for renovation of the historical area and re-allocation of La Pitié buildings that were no longer adapted to hospital purposes. Suitable buildings could be built on the available land. Many current and future hospital functions could be carried out in a small area: nothing was worse than wishing to manipulate, add to and deform the existing buildings, and yet this was hospital directors' first reflex when space had to be found. The speaker stressed the need to take an interest in interstitial areas, which were equally as important as the buildings and should be the subject of specific research and funding. Unfortunately, this study had not resulted in concrete projects. A diagnosis had been carried out, a project drawn up and a time-table decided, and then everything had stopped.
Mr Riboulet went on to describe the 1998 construction of the Limoges library, which incorporated part of an 18th-century former hospital. The design contest had aimed to conserve the hospital's listed façade and to build the library beside it. Photographs showed that the hospital had been allowed to fall into disrepair for several years, despite its central location in full view of the town hall. The design project included the historical section and the new building had been built against it. This new building was to be aligned with the layout of the original Gallo-Roman town; remains of the forum had been found on the site.
Some library facilities, such as newspaper and magazine consultation, were easily accommodated in the old buildings, which were rather confined. A gallery extended from a large arched room to a central atrium, situated on the lower level of the reading room, where a Roman mosaic discovered on the site had been put on display. So long as they were clearly distinguished, conserved historical features added value to contemporary projects. The design had also entailed rebuilding of the historic structure, with the exception of the façade, which had been restored; additional floors had been created in line with the new building. The district would be given new life and the adjacent derelict land would be parcelled off. If the correct approach was used, conservation of old buildings was not an obstacle for contemporary projects: on the contrary, they contributed an architectural quality that was very difficult to create from scratch.
Mr Valter Balducci, architect, lecturer at Genoa University (Italy), also gave an illustrated presentation of projects carried out in Italy, a country where, as in other parts of Europe, there had been a collective realisation of the civic value of old buildings and their culturally important contents. This outburst of civic pride had lead, for example, to work being resumed on the site of the Naples Poor Hospital after decades of neglect; it was now the setting for numerous cultural events and the symbol of the city's renaissance. Renovated historic buildings were generally used for public facilities. Architects and town planners were attempting to conserve the physical structures and find purposes that would enable such buildings to be used in public life.
Mr Balducci's first example was the gradual conversion of the Santa Maria della Scala hospital in Sienna, one of the oldest and richest hospital complexes in Italy. Prior to renovation work, it had been a disparate structure, erected over several centuries, and overhanging the city walls. In particular, it contained a superb room, the Salle de Pèlerin, decorated with a 15th century fresco, which had been used as a day-ward for many years. Hospital activities came to an end at the end of the 1970s. After more than a decade of discussions, an architectural design contest was held. The winner, Guido Canali, proposed that the building be used both functionally and conceptually and had defined its role in the town. He recommended that the old hospital become an open public structure containing cultural institutions and exhibition and conference rooms, a kind of citadel of culture in progress, a miniature town within the larger city. The restoration played on the clear distinction between the old structures and the modern layout, which was inspired by certain minimalist concepts. The possibility of setting up an cross-disciplinary museum, to exhibit the importance of the various Siennese artistic schools through the centuries, was currently being examined. Other uses had been proposed for the building, such as a European research centre on restoration.
Another hospital, founded in 12th-century Genoa by the Hospitallers of St John for pilgrims, contained rooms overlooking the Ripa (the port) and a huge church, but had been left behind by technological progress and the negligence shown by the Order of Malta. Legislation enacted in 1939 and the new Civil Code of 1941 permitted a compulsory purchase order to be applied and enabled the building to be saved in extremis: its central room was now open to the public and was used for temporary exhibitions.
Another tactic was to convert this kind of building into a university. Such conversions were relatively easy to implement, since hospital structures adapted well to this new use. The most famous example was the Ca Grande (main hospital, 15th century) in Milan, by the architect Filarete, which today housed the state university. Hospitals' large rooms could also be used as libraries. This approach was illustrated by a few slides, showing the Albergo dei Poveri in Genoa, where the rooms were arranged in the shape of a cross around a chapel. This hospital, used as such into the 1980s, had been re-designated in 1993 and converted into a university library for the political science faculty. The Great Hall combined heterogeneous forms and materials while preserving the spatial design of the large ward.
In Rome, the hospital of Saint John of Latran had been converted into a reception and documentation centre for Jubilee 2000: its large galleries were equipped with detachable modern amenities. Whatever the course of action chosen for rehabilitating these magnificent hospital buildings - congress centre, exhibition area, university institution - it was necessary each time to unite a rich history with contemporary usage, to preserve an open structure that fostered coherent social identification that was integrated into the town's life.
Ms Lanaïck Verdier, Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées (France), described the end-of-course project prepared by a multidisciplinary group composed of Charles Pottier, surveying engineer, Y. Roth, geographer, C. Vacher, state-accredited architect, and herself, a planner. She pointed out that during the 1990s the AP-HP had introduced a policy of humanising hospitals and adapting to technological advances, necessitating more streamlined management of hospital facilities at all levels.
The issue of space, land and property management had thus became vital, particularly since hospital development had taken place haphazardly for a century. Short-term needs had frequently taken priority over long-term planning, resulting in numerous shortcomings (accessibility, parking, movement of traffic). The AP-HP's heritage and logistics department had therefore introduced a series of master plans: these were planning tools that defined an action plan for each institution's property and medical needs. In this connection, and before drawing up the master plans, it had commissioned a study on developing the land and property heritage of hospitals from the Masters programme at the Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées. This study, entitled "Towards an urban the hospital", was prepared using a "multi-layered" approach and involved establishing a historical typology of hospital buildings, identifying the typology of the AP-HP's hospitals, and finally drawing up a series of urban planning recommendations for one of these (previously identified) types.
The historical approach enabled the close relation between buildings' morphology and their function to be revealed, as well as the frequently decisive role played by economic, medical and social circumstances. Four main phases could be distinguished:
- church hospitals (from the 9th to 14th centuries): health care was inseparable from religious charity and hospital architecture was inspired by church architecture;
- the classical hospital (15th to 18th centuries): with the Renaissance, religion lost its dominance over health care provision. Sources of reference were no longer exclusively spiritual, and architecture became secular;
- from the 18th century until 1930, under the influence of hygienics, "treatment factories" were developed;
- finally, in the nineteen-thirties, the vertically integrated hospital emerged, bringing together all departments and frequently located in the suburbs.
The requirements of functionalism and concentration of services meant that hospital services were increasingly integrated into a single budgetary package, to the detriment of the site's overall spatial organisation and the quality of the environment. A "humanisation" policy therefore required that hospitals' terrain and the immediate urban environment be more fully taken into account. Hospitals had to be considered as single entities, with strengths as well as weaknesses.
The second part of the research involved drawing up a typology of the AP-HP's hospital sites, using three criteria: the relationship between hospitals and towns; the built heritage, particularly in relation to the links between morphology and function; and external areas. Accordingly, the study identified six models of spatial organisation:
- subdivisions, usually in hospitals built between the 17th and early 20th centuries, and characterised by buildings and services that were scattered across the territory;
- the compressed model, used by the majority of "hygienist" hospitals in the 19th century, with a circular wing built around a compact centre;
- the co-ordinated model, inherited from the late 19th-century sanatorium, in which separate pavilions were connected by covered galleries;
- the compact model, adopted in the 1930s and reflecting functionalist theories: here, services were combined in a self-contained building;
- the horizontal model which emerged in the 1980s reflected the new humanisation policy;
- Hôtel-Dieu's organisational structure was unique: inspired by hygienist thought, the buildings were divided up around a central courtyard.
The study highlighted an important fact: each model prioritised the medical use of buildings, to the detriment of their urban environment and external areas. The assessment of each model's weaknesses and strengths ranked the problems in order of importance and enabled a list to be drawn up of the action to be taken within a coherent programme. From this perspective, the study attempted to draw up a general list of development recommendations, so as to achieve rational management of the territory, striking a balance between medical and heritage needs. These recommendations focused on:
- simplifying the site's spatial organisation (identifying a site's potential by evaluating the land resources; organising coherent traffic arrangements and parking provision);
- improving reception and in-patient facilities (up-grading public areas; up-grading the built heritage through a heritage policy that involved renovation, conversion, closure or maintenance);
- establishing dialogue between hospitals and towns (managing the town/hospital interface; improving the hospital's accessibility and public transport services to it; improving directions signs to hospitals).
This general list of recommendations could be adapted to the various hospital models, and a more specific list of recommendations had accordingly been drawn up for the "subdivisions" model. It had been possible to test certain hypotheses by outlining spatial planning proposals. At this stage, the team responsible for the study became aware of the gulf between the strictly medical vision of certain hospital personnel and the wider town planning vision that it was trying to present. It was logical that hospitals, as health establishments, gave priority to their health-related functions. However, they could not refuse to take their environment into account. This was the cost of humanisation policies. Given this noticeable discrepancy between the concerns of hospital administrations and those of urban planners, it seemed appropriate to give the public institutions in charge of hospitals an instrument that would be appropriate for heritage management.
Mr François Barré, Director of Heritage and Architecture, Ministry of Culture and Communication, President of the Caisse des monuments historiques (France), welcomed the proposals from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which fostered European identity and culture. In this area, he added, the Organisation was carrying out its mission in an exemplary fashion. He believed the coming century would see the use of derelict land become more prevalent. As the world became more and more full, leaders and engineers would be obliged to convert and re-classify rather than spreading out at will across unoccupied territory. The problem of derelict land or redundant buildings arose in many fields; examples included country churches which, even when unused, remained essential sites of community life and identity; synagogues in Alsace; sites that were part of the industrial heritage or new derelict land from the service sector. Creation was no longer an act ex nihilo, but a transformation, the realisation of a culture of otherness.
Discussion of rehabilitation or reclassification meant first of all posing the question of what deserved to be preserved. There were monuments which spoke for themselves and could be viewed without any change in use; however, in most cases, their social usefulness had to be questioned. Hospital or military buildings, industrial sites and former prisons were frequently large complexes. Finding new uses for these buildings and seeking to conserve them was, of course, legitimised by the duty to remember the past, but also by economic realities. France received more than 70 million tourists each year, bringing 170 billion Francs into the economy. More than 20% of these tourists came primarily on account of the quality of the country's heritage, and they spent considerably more money each year than the State allocated for its maintenance tasks. Consequently, it was not illegitimate to think that heritage was also a source of wealth, provided, of course, that it was not over-run by its admirers, as the Carcassone citadel or Mont St Michel were. Preservation and access for visitors had to be reconciled, without making historic town centres into lifeless museums.
Turning to the military heritage, Mr Barré pointed out that the State had frequently bought buildings that the territorial authorities had not wished to purchase in spite of their historical or financial interest - examples included the Carcassone and Aigues Mortes citadels. The culture and defence ministries had also signed agreements on restoring certain buildings, such as the Vincennes keep or les Invalides, even if it meant waiving the rule, in force since 1975, that each part of the state administration was responsible for its own buildings. For its part, the Ministry of Defence had set up a unit to re-evaluate its assets and to devolve the administration of those assets affected by the introduction of a professional army. However, many barracks, often dating from the 19th century, did not have a recognised cultural value under the current criteria, and were due to be demolished. In addition, politicians sometimes asked the regional agencies for cultural affairs (DRACs) to postpone site protection measures, for fear of dissuading potential buyers.
The hospital legacy was also composed of large entities located in town centres and had always played an important role in the composition of the urban fabric. How could it be protected and given a new role that respected its past? Everyone now clearly understood the quality of the existing heritage and was willing to ensure that it became tomorrow's heritage. Whether with regard to hospitals or military buildings, the important thing was to opt for a renewable history, and this required thinking in advance about the options for adapting and re-classifying these sites and their future.
Mr Barré listed the strategic approaches that the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly could include in its recommendations: the need for an inventory, especially the preparation of exhaustive thematic documents; amendments to the law on hospitals, which had been called for unsuccessfully over many years, so as to provide better protection for movable assets; preservation of large territories that provided towns with areas of clean air; the need for consistency in contracting practices in heritage management - which the Paris Welfare Assistance administration had achieved by setting up an architectural quality board. Architecture that provided good solutions to functional problems could be easily adapted; good architecture allowed for changes in the use of premises. It was essential that decision-makers took on board this culture of development, this flexible way of thinking about the future of heritage and of viewing its social value. The speaker concluded by hoping that the Parliamentary Assembly would include the future of the judicial heritage, i.e. prisons and courts, in its discussions.
Mr Hervé Oudin, Assistant Director of Heritage at the Directorate for collective memory, heritage and archives at the Ministry of Defence (France), noted that the Ministry of Defence was the biggest landowner in France: it owned 266,000 hectares, or 0.5% of the national territory; just over 1% of this area was occupied by buildings. Its assets were diverse, relatively widely distributed, and most likely to be in the centres of small and medium-sized towns or their immediate periphery. The professionalisation of the defence services had been a true revolution, and a successful example of state reform. The reduction in the size of the armed forces had important consequences for the location of the Ministry's property and had been accompanied by successive waves of restructuring. These were primarily intended to maintain the armies' operational capacity, but consideration was given to their economic, social and development impact. The Ministry of Defence had been making plans since at least 1996, so as to avoid sudden changes in land occupation that frequently resulted in site deterioration and the emergence of derelict land. The conversion of the defence authorities' territories was characterised by a willingness to involve as many local partners as possible, and to take account of the potential and architectural value of the sites. Economic realities also played their part.
The reforms aside, the Ministry of Defence remained a major landowner and had to continue to assume its responsibilities with regard to maintenance, protection and development. It was attempting to preserve as much as possible of the architectural and commemorative value of the heritage, and collaborating with the Ministry of Culture over certain prestigious sites, such as the Invalides, the Ecole militaire, the Brest citadel or the fortifications in Briançon. Nor did it overlook sites of lesser importance, which it intended to preserve and develop. A balance had to be found between heritage concerns and economic and budgetary needs. While noting that the reduction in funding and territorial retrenchment which accompanied professionalisation created certain restrictions, the speaker considered that territorial conversion was not incompatible with heritage preservation.
The Vauban Fort in Lille housed a university. The fort at Les Rousses in the Jura had been economically regenerated in an unusual way, and now housed a cheese factory and a spectacles factory. The Grands-Maisons barracks in Metz had been converted into housing. There were also plans to implement a housing programme in the Grammont district of Saint-Germain, although this project would be expensive. It had to be accepted that not everything could be saved and preserved. However, within this context of constraints, particularly on the financial level, the Ministry of Defence was attempting to identify priorities. It had accordingly commissioned a study to list the fortified military heritage and examine its potential for tourism.
Mr Pierre Laugeay, Head of the Office for property management and urban planning at the Directorate of collective memory, heritage and archives (French Ministry of Defence), wished to mention the special case of Fontainbleu, a town at the edge of Paris which was nonetheless very provincial. Three factors imposed constraints: its castle, of significant heritage value, its forest and the Ministry of Defence. The Ministry occupied a third of the municipality's territory, which had an inevitable impact on urban planning developments. Under the restructuring of the armed forces, the Ministry of Defence had removed this third constraint from the municipality: some units and departments had been disbanded, and an significant amount of Ministry territory was to be converted
The Ministry had attempted to take early action by initiating dialogue in July 1997 and undertaking to provide prompt information about the fate of the various territories. As of 1998, it announced that it had no intention of using the site, apart from the areas occupied by two Gendarmerie colleges, and sought to establish a dialogue with the local authorities regarding the task of developing its property assets. The State was also involved. A steering committee, co-chaired by the préfet and the town's mayor, and open to all agencies, had launched a feasibility study, to be carried out by the AFTRP (the state land assembly and servicing enterprise in the Paris region). Over a year, the AFTRP had identified various conversion options, while seeking to ensure that the local authorities took control of the projects, since it was not for the Ministry of Defence to say what they should do. Several ideas had been considered: these included a science centre for research and training; a tourist development, which would make use of the features with architectural value, such as the listed Hérronnière barracks; and a sports facility that would be linked to sports provision in the joint military sports school
.
The territories would not be available until 2001-2002, but the local authorities were already involved in the conversion process: the ministry was providing assistance and facilitating the emergence of feasible projects. Once the authorities had obtained the land, the Defence Ministry would help them to acquire technical and financial resources, such as structural funds ear-marked for revitalising "abandoned" sites.
At the close of this very informative morning, Mr Jacques Legendre said that that the topic chosen had perhaps been too restrictive and that, as Mr Barré had suggested, it should have covered buildings from the civil heritage (prisons, courtrooms, town halls, etc). In any case, he was aware of the very topical nature of the issue, which called for urgent consideration at European level, since the question arose in all countries. It was therefore worthwhile to put forward solutions that would help to preserve the urban landscape.
Mr Legendre noted that the Parliamentary Assembly would be called on to give its opinion, on the basis of documents which could later serve as guidelines for national legislation. For example, the forthcoming law on preventative archaeology, for which he had been rapporteur and which the Senate was due to examine in the near future, drew on the recommendations adopted at Vallette and contained in the Malta convention. It would be helpful to know whether the Council of Europe had given thought to the future of buildings which had marked the history of European cities: such a study would certainly influence national legislation. More time had been given to the hospital heritage than to the military heritage during the morning, but discussions were only beginning.
After saying how valuable he had found the visit to Cambrai, which had enabled the parliamentarians on the Committee to see for themselves Mr Legendre's exemplary activities in their area of concern, Mr Emanuelis Zingeris (Lithuania) welcomed the fact that the Parliamentary Assembly was initiating discussions on a text that was of importance for all European countries. He reminded the participants that Soviet troops had occupied part of the historic centre of Vilnius after the Nazi aggression, in particular an important neo-Gothic building dating from the 19th century. After independence, the Lithuanian authorities had quickly renovated this building, which now housed several faculties of the university of Lithuania (almost 4000 students and 300 teaching staff) in an exceptional setting that was one of the key elements in the old town. This example showed that the countries of central and eastern Europe were also capable of carrying out restoration programmes on their old buildings and putting them to genuine use.
Mr Hadjidemetriou (Cyprus) wished to draw attention to the fate of the Nicosia hospital, which was likely to be demolished to make room for the new parliament. He expressed his consternation at this project, which he had mentioned in Parliament, and noted that he and his friends were rallying to preserve this building, as well as the psychiatric hospital, which was part of the island's historical heritage and also threatened by construction plans for government offices. He was fighting to ensure that these historic hospital buildings were preserved.
Mr Pedro Roseta, (Portugal) Chairman of the Committee on Culture and Education, thanked all those who had participated in the productive and informative discussions, particularly Senator Legendre, who had been working for years to restore disused public buildings and had implemented a restoration programme in Cambrai, where he was mayor. The Committee members had had an opportunity to admire this work. Former barracks now housed the law courts, good quality public housing, and a gymnasium. These were all examples of successful conversion work.
Europe had a vast heritage of fortifications, barracks and prisons, which posed an enormous challenge to planners: examples had been given from France, Italy and Lithuania, but others could also have been cited, such as the Spanish monasteries or military buildings that had been converted into hotels, the celebrated paradores, or in Portugal, the pousadas (although the Committee had already examined the question of religious buildings). The Queen Sophia Museum of Contemporary Art in Madrid was housed in an 18th-century former hospital, and in Coimbra, a university was now installed in a large barracks.
Not long ago, the first idea that came to mind when thinking of how to restore disused buildings was creating a museum. Mr Roseta had nothing against museums: he pointed out that the Musée des Beaux-Arts in Lille had received the Council of Europe's Museum Prize, and that the Cambrai museum was praiseworthy. However, museums could not be opened everywhere; Europe should not become a collection of museums. Other solutions had to be found to revitalise the heritage, and the Council of Europe could play a pioneering role in this field. The right to remember the past should be combined with the right to innovate, and the Council could help to publicise experiences in both areas. Mr Legendre would make proposals in his report.
However, Mr Roseta wished to stress a determining factor: political will, which was the only thing that could ensure that restoration of these buildings was a priority for political authorities. Here too, the Council of Europe could take action so that awareness was raised throughout the member states regarding the work to be done. Mr Roseta concluded the hearing by thanking again all those who had helped to prepare the report, particularly Senator Legendre, whose political authority had contributed greatly to the meeting's success.
The hearing closed at 2pm.
List of participants
Mr Pedro ROSETA, Chairman of the Committee on Culture and Education, Portugal
Mr Takis HADJIDEMETRIOU, Chairman of the Sub-Committee on the Cultural Heritage, Cyprus
Mr Mihai BACIU, Romania
Mr John BROWNE, Ireland
Mr Jacques LEGENDRE, Rapporteur, France
Mr Marcin LIBICKI, Poland
Mr Emanuelis ZINGERIS, Lithuania
Speakers
Mr Valter BALDUCCI, Architect, Lecturer in the University of Genoa (Italy)
Mr François BARRE, Director of Heritage and Architecture, Ministry of Culture and Communication, President of the Caisse des monuments historiques (France)
Mr Guy BERNFELD, Director of the National Assistance Heritage in Paris
Mr Jean CASTEX, Architect
Mr Edouard COUTY, Director of Hospitals, French Ministry of Health
Mr Pierre LAUGEAY, Head of the Office for property management and urban planning at the Directorate of collective memory, heritage and archives (French Ministry of Defence)
Mr Jean-Michel LENIAUD, Art Historian, Lecturer in the Ecole des Chartes
Mr Hervé OUDIN, Assistant Director of Heritage at the Directorate of collective memory, heritage and archives (French Ministry of Defence)
Mrs Anne PÉTILLOT, Architect of the National Assistance Hospitals of Paris
Mr Pierre RIBOULET, Architect and town planner
Mr Maurice ROCHAIX, President of the Society of the History of Hospitals
Ms Lanaïck VERDIER, Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées (France)
Secretariats
– French Senate
Mrs Claire DOSSIER-CARZOU, Counsellor, European Affairs Department,
Tél. 33.1 42 34 26 30
– Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe: tél.: 33.3.88 41.21.12
Fax: 33.3.88.41.27.97
Mr Christopher Grayson, Head of the Division on Culture and Education
Mr João Ary, Secretary to the Committee on Culture and Education
Mrs Anne-Marie Nothis, Administrative assistan
Reporting committee: Committee on Culture and Education
Budgetary implications for the Assembly: None.
Reference to committee: Doc.7938 and Reference No. 2231 of 7 November 1997
Draft recommendation: unanimously adopted by the committee on 4 September 2000.
Members of the committee: MM. Roseta (Chairman), Zingeris, de Puig (Alternate: Varela i Sera), Ivanov (Vice-Chairmen), Arzilli, Bartumeu Cassany, Baumel, Billing, Ms Castro, MM. Cherribi, Chiliman, Cubreacov, Dumitrescu, Fayot, Mrs Fehr, Mrs Granlund, MM. Hadjidemetriou, Haraldsson, Hegyi, Henry, Irmer, Mrs Isohookana-Asunmaa, MM. Jakic, Javelidze, Kalkan, Mrs Katseli, MM. Khripel, Kiely, Kofod-Svendsen, Kovacevic, Lachat (Alternate: Reimann), Mrs Laternser, MM. Legendre, Lemoine, Libicki, Mrs Lucyga, MM. McNamara, Melnikov, Mezeckis, Monfils, Mrs Moserova, Mr Nagy, Mrs Nemcova, MM. O’Hara, Pinggera, Mrs Poptodorova, MM. Pullicino Orlando, Ragno, Risari, Mrs Saele, Mr Sağlam, Mrs Schicker, MM. Schweitzer, Shaklein, Siebert, Mrs Stefani, MM. Svec, Symonenko, Taliadouros, Ms Troncho, Urbanczyk, Vahtre, Valk (Alternate: Eversdijk), Wilshire, Xhaferi.
NB: The names of those present at the meeting are in italics
Secretaries to the committee: Mr Ary, Mrs Theophilova-Permaul, Ms Kostenko