A Study on the Trends of Acceptance Criteria of the Relocation of Architectural Heritages and Priority Values of Monuments in Seoul

Author:

Kee SehwangORCID

Abstract

Relocation of architectural heritage at home and abroad has been permitted only in cases where it is ‘only as a last resort, if protection cannot be achieved by any other means’, but this standard is not specifically set, causing confusion. Against this background, this study looked at the allowable standards for relocation of all architectural heritage cases relocated within Seoul. The acceptance criteria for relocation could be divided into two categories: for urban development or for restoration. Riegl’s monument value system was borrowed in order to determine under what values of the times the permission of such a move was permitted. As a result, from the 1960s to the 1990s, structures of architectural heritage were recognized as objects of conservation, but the original site (land) was not. Additionally, at this time, the ‘values of the present’ of the architectural heritage (includes both the structure and the site) was given priority over the ‘values of the past’ of it. It is after the 1990s that the ‘values of the past’ of the site have been recognized, and as it becomes closer in recent years, the relocation of architectural heritage tends to be carried out only to restore its original site. In this study, by analyzing the case of Seoul, it was revealed in what cases the relocation of architectural heritage was allowed, and the value priorities that acted on the background were analyzed. This study is representative in that Seoul is the capital and largest city of Korea. In addition, this study examines the change in perception, values, and paradigm of each cultural heritage that has been shown by various national institutions (Cultural Heritage Administration, President, Seoul Metropolitan Government) from the 1960s to the present by analyzing the criteria for permission for the act of moving. It allows interpretation and comparison.

Publisher

MDPI AG

Subject

Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law,Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment,Geography, Planning and Development,Building and Construction

Reference70 articles.

1. The Venice Charter (ICOMOS, 1964), Article 7. A Monument Is Inseparable from the History to Which It Bears Witness and from the Setting in Which It Occurs. The Moving of All or Part of a Monument Cannot Be Allowed Except Where the Safeguarding of That Monument Demands It or Where It Is Justified by National or International Interest of Paramount Importance https://www.icomos.org/centre_documentation/bib/2012_charte%20de%20venise.pdf

2. The Burra Charter (ICOMOS, 1979), Article 9. A Building or Work Should Remain in Its Historical Location. The Moving of All or Part of a Building or Work Is Unacceptable unless This Is the Sole Means of Ensuring Its Survival https://australia.icomos.org/wp-content/uploads/Burra-Charter_1979.pdf

3. The Appleton Charter (ICOMOS, 1983), Relocation. Relocation and Dismantling of an Existing Resource Should Be Employed only as a Last Resort, if Protection Cannot Be Achieved by Any Other Means https://www.icomos.org/charters/appleton.pdf

4. New Zealand Charter (ICOMOS, 1992), 10. Relocation: The On-Going Association of a Structure or Feature of Cultural Heritage Value with Its Location, Site, Curtilage, and Setting Is Essential to Its Authenticity and Integrity. Therefore, a Structure or Feature of Cultural Heritage Value Should Remain on Its Original Site. Relocation of a Structure or Feature of Cultural Heritage value, Where Its Removal Is Required in Order to Clear Its Site for a Different Purpose or Construction, or Where Its Removal Is Required to Enable Its Use on a Different Site, Is Not a Desirable Outcome and Is Not a Conservation Process. In Exceptional Circumstances, a Structure of Cultural Heritage Value May Be Relocated if Its Current Site Is in Imminent Danger, and If All Other Means of Retaining the Structure in Its Current Location Have Been Exhausted. In This Event, the New Location Should Provide a Setting Compatible with the Cultural Heritage Value of the Structure https://www.icomos.org/images/DOCUMENTS/Charters/ICOMOS_NZ_Charter_2010_FINAL_11_Oct_2010.pdf

5. The Burra Charter(revision) (ICOMOS, 1999), Article 9. Location: 9.1 The Physical Location of a Place Is Part of Its Cultural Significance. Abuilding, Work or Other Component of a Place Should Remain in Its Historical Location. Relocation Is Generally Unacceptable unless This Is the Sole Practical Means of Ensuring Its Survival. 9.2 Some Buildings, Works or Other Components of Places Were Designed to Be Readily Removable or Already Have a History of Relocation. Provided such Buildings, Works or Other Components Do Not Have Significant Links with Their Present Location, Removal May Be Appropriate. 9.3 If Any Building, Work or Other Component Is Moved, It Should Be Moved to an Appropriate Location and Given an Appropriate Use. Such Action Should Not Be to the Detriment of Any Place of Cultural Significance https://australia.icomos.org/wp-content/uploads/BURRA_CHARTER.pdf

Cited by 2 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3