Edinburgh World Heritage Site - Buildings / News Edinburgh World Heritage Trust - EWHT, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK

UNESCO World Heritage Site Edinburgh

The importance of central Edinburgh has been recognised by UNESCO, with its designation as a World Heritage Site. Ironbridge Gorge near Telford and Georgian Bath are the only other two sites in Britain. The centre of Edinburgh was designated a World Heritage Site by UNESCO in 1995. UNESCO - Edinburgh World Heritage Trust: The Edinburgh World Heritage Trust (EWHT) was created by the amalgamation of the Old Town Renewal Trust and the New Town Conservation Committee in 1999. The Trust is funded by Historic Scotland and the City of Edinburgh Council. The aim of The Edinburgh World Heritage Trust is to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Edinburgh UNESCO Site's special architectural or historic interest. EWHT seeks to co-ordinate activities necessary for the protection of the heritage value of the Edinburgh World Heritage Site through controlled development. Edinburgh World Heritage Trust, 5 Charlotte Square, Edinburgh Contact the EWHT on 0131 220 7720 Edinburgh Skyline Study hosted at EWHT in 2007 More info on Edinburgh World Heritage Site:- www.heritage.edinburgh.gov.uk Other UNESCO World Heritage Sites include the Taj Mahal, Florence and Prague. Update Jul 2005 World Heritage Site Expansion? EWHT Report proposes review boundary of Edinburgh World Heritage Site to provide better protection for historic buildings. 26.07.05 Edinburgh Council appointed the landscape architects Colvin & Moggridge from England to draw up a strategy to help planning officers assess proposals for tall structures. Their study will provide a framework to look at how skyscrapers can fit in without damaging Edinburgh's famous skyline, and constitute the first proper review since the Holford Tall Buildings Review in 1968. In 1947 architects Holden & Holford carried out a review of London's tall buildings. World Heritage Site - Background The concept of World Heritage Sites is based on UNESCO's 1972 Convention for the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. The Convention noted that cultural and natural heritage was increasingly threatened by traditional causes of decay and changing economic and social conditions. UNESCO established the World Heritage Committee to compile a list of properties and sites considered to be of outstanding universal value. The guidelines on World Heritage Sites recommend that historic urban centres should only be included on the World Heritage List if they are of exceptional interest. Edinburgh Old & New Towns are a blend of two urban phenomena - organic medieval and neo-classical town planning. World Heritage status marks the need to manage and safeguard the special character of the Edinburgh World Heritage Site. To do so the World Heritage Partnership Group signed a Statement of Intent to work together to conserve and enhance the World Heritage Site. The City of Edinburgh Council Planning Committee considers World Heritage Site status as a material factor when assessing applications for planning permission and listed building consent in Edinburgh. The EWHT have published the World Heritage Site Conservation Manifesto. The Edinburgh World Heritage Trust will take the lead in preparing the Management Plan for the UNESCO Site. The Edinburgh World Heritage Trust - Remit: To stimulate and co-ordinate action for the conservation and repair of historic buildings in the Edinburgh World Heritage Site. To promote the preservation and enhancement of the character of the Site; and to develop and maintain an Action Plan. To advise Scottish Ministers and the Local Authority on major policy and development issues; and to comment on other planning issues as necessary. To monitor the Edinburgh World Heritage Site on behalf of the Scottish Ministers; and to inform and advise organisations involved in the management of Edinburgh City Centre. To initiate projects and attract funding for the preservation and enhancement of the Edinburgh World Heritage Site. To promote the World Heritage Site through education, exhibitions, conferences and examples of skill and good practice. Contact the EWHT: info@ewht.org.uk

Spaces?

Editorial: December 2001 Another month starts after a 'big bash', this time a day of debate at the Hub. There was little entrenchment at this debate, some barbed words and offers of friendship. I went away with Ian Wall's words ringing in my head warning of the cosiness of the affair, the Friday afternoon architects' 'lovefest'. Terry Levinthal's point that it's the medocrity we should be campaigning about is a valid and important one: although we should spend more time on key planning submissions in the city centre than those outside (Edinburgh World Heritage site and so on), it should not be to such a degree: I would suggest a redistribution of focus. Edinburgh is slowly becoming a stageset surrounded by built detritus. If the contrast were to sharpen (and it really looks like it will) it would seriously devalue the merits of what has been achieved in the centre. Get involved in your local community, if not already: write, cajole and complain, and, as the Cockburn is starting to do more and more, be positive and try and suggest, promote and encourage good contemporary architecture. For reference [from October Editorial]: Addendum Pre-Big Debate statement 28.11.01 As stated in the previous Editorial I would like to think the various strands of architecture could agree to differ and to push forward exciting, innovative architecture in our city. Entrenchment helps no-one. The continual blocking of schemes by heritage bodies irks architects trying to effect positive change in this city; at the same time developers need to do a lot more than at present. The Evening News may knock the Cockburn for complaining about the GPO (mid-Oct), but rich out-of-town developers need to be firmly encouraged to add something back to Edinburgh (such as an interconnection with Waverley, an obvious but costly step in this case). The problems that I perceive some people to have with new development (see my Prospect 'Comment') are little to do with style or contextuality, but about integrating schemes into our transport network, investing to get long-term reward and talking to the community (and sometimes about nimbeism). If local people know the [big] developer has come to explain their loss of view, the materials, the effect on noise levels at night, car parking numbers, pedestrian routes, etc., then they might be more cooperative. Too often the consultation comes after the planning submission is approved. I'm not a big fan of community design, but community consultation is a must and should not dull schemes. Developers must be pressured to accept some minute dip in profits to facilitate integrated and accepted development: the City Council has a role here too. The Evening News Leader (27.11.01) claims we need the heritage bodies: this is correct, but I can think of a few schemes the AHSS has lodged complaints with that just don't merit it. It could be argued that that is just my point of view, but there is no subjectivity about the effect it has on our city. I have to explain to the Client why his innocuous little sign, say, has provoked a complaint, and struggle to find a logical underpinning. Some Clients (especially small-scale local ones) might just shrug, but others will surely be thinking of developing in other less hostile cities. I just hope that the Big Debate can effect some lasting good. A slanging match will not be a result.

Apart from the Big Debate, what else has been happening? The other big debate that has raged on and on - the new Scottish Parliament - has reached another peak in the Press over reported plans to further limit, in a formal and public way, the role of Spanish practice EMBT. Another government document (Designing Places), has been issued to complement the Architecture Policy for Scotland. Princes Street has also become a hot issue again after the rekindling of the Galleries scheme, an underground 'mall' the length of Princes Street. The Edinburgh City Cenre Managment Group (ECCMG) have proposed large-scale demolitions in the street, and at the Big Debate Malcolm Fraser reiterated his call for selective demolition. Most people 'experience' (ie observe) Princes Street from the adjacent pavement, not from afar, and thus the worst aspect for many are empty shops. A current case in point is the future H&M Edinburgh, C&A building with adjacent 39-41 Princes Street destined for imminent redevelopment (3d Architects): appalling blankness that is an embarrassment up and down the country. Surely national legislation to prevent this is required. Stepping back to look at Princes Street, the potential ways forward are numerous, but what's for certain is that the street corners are often weak. The worst case is at South St. Andrew's Street where the block above the Carphone Warehouse (along to the Royal British Hotel) is shockingly provincial and substandard for this capital throughfare. Further along we have Hanover Street (Duet in B Minor?) and Frederick Street (gable ends with dull chamfered blocks at street level); worst of all is the soon-to-be-developed (hopefully) Burger King end block at Castle Street with its incongruous brown cladding and silly windows. Blank facades as at C&A are perpetuated across the city and surely - for many people - form a nail in 'modern' architecture's coffin: British Home Stores on Rose Street, the block just north of the Edinburgh Filmhouse on Lothian Road, the Thistle Hotel on Leith Street. Talking of which, given the break down in talks last year to redevelop New St.Andrew's House, maybe we could disband the St James Centre bit-by-bit (yes, the best way is demolish all but that seems unlikely): first the old bridge - what a prominent piece of ugliness - then the entrance canopies (south and west)? Bridges should, of course, be elegant and in the lea of Calton Hill, there must be an opportunity to shortlist some great bridge designers? I imagine the developers of Calton Square would appreciate its replacement. Continuing with bridges, just like Dublin's and London's requirement for (and achievement of) more bridges to cross a central city division, so Edinburgh requires pedestrian routes across the railway chasm. The bridge proposed as part of the Calton Gate scheme (adj. old St Andrew's House) seems to have been quietly forgotten by many (it's still in the planning submission, subject to funding). As a city why are we so blase about letting opportunities like this slip? Developers should make huge profits here, especially in the wake of the new Parliament, so why not ask them to put that bit extra in? One for the Council. Scottish Architecture Edinburgh Walking Tours Edinburgh : back to index News Excerpt re the EWHT: Trust Budget Problems Edinburgh World Heritage Trust "Bob Cairns, a director of the trust and the council’s planning convener, said: "I’m concerned at the financial situation of the trust and I very much hope that the review going ahead will result in the organisation becoming more efficient and effective". "It has resources far in excess of any other conservation organisation in Scotland. The city very much values the work it does but we have to look at how effectively it’s being carried out" http://news.scotsman.com 26.04.02 Edinburgh World Heritage Site:- www.heritage.edinburgh.gov.uk