Eyesore May Reveal Whole Story

The motto of the European Architectural Heritage Year in 1975 was 'A future for our past'. Now, 50 years later, it is 'A future for whose past?'. Whose past are we talking about here?

Silke Langenberg: In 1975, it was about protecting historic buildings that were threatened with demolition due to urban regeneration. Many initiatives were launched in Switzerland at the time that still have an impact today. The 2025 anniversary year expands on the idea, and asks whose heritage we actually preserve - and whose history has been brushed over or completely overlooked up to now. Most buildings are protected because they have architectural or historical significance. But many buildings and sites tell stories that are not part of our collective memory. However, for certain groups they hold a deeper meaning, for example barracks for guest workers, homeless shelters, children's homes and women's refuges. We're taking the Architectural Heritage Year in 2025 as an opportunity to have a broad discussion about who has a stake in Switzerland's architectural heritage and how.

So has diversity not featured in architectural heritage conservation until now?

The issue is nothing new: for example, the guidelines on monument preservation in Switzerland explicitly addressed the heritage of minorities back in 2007. Researchers and practitioners recognised the importance of cultural significance and diversity of monuments. Nonetheless, it seems that only relatively few buildings whose preservation would be particularly important for minorities are actually protected.

Who or which topics have missed out in architectural heritage conservation to date?

To answer this question, we started by setting up a broad network with various institutions and groups. We consulted representatives of minorities and fringe groups. This project is essentially about engaging with and learning from members of different communities.

But also, as part of our 'Future Heritage' course in the Spring Semester 2024, we worked with around 200 students to consider the question of potential forms of discrimination, who they affect, and what could be preserved as heritage for the groups concerned. A similar course was then run at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne EPFL.

What came out of this collaborative research?

We identified potential discrimination on the grounds of origin, language, sexual orientation, sex, class, educational level, age, as well as physical or mental impairments. Obviously, this is not an exhaustive list. We asked ourselves: What structures could be important to these people? What buildings and sites represent their heritage? Could shelters for the homeless or other facilities for disadvantaged people potentially be protected buildings?

How important was student participation to the project?

Involving students was a crucial step. They were initially free to select potential buildings or sites to be protected. We quickly realised how discussions about more inclusive heritage resonate with the young generation. What was also interesting was that students proposed different buildings and sites than older colleagues - and different ones from those that my assistants and I chose. The fact that they are a very diverse group with members from all over Switzerland and from abroad meant that we were able to discuss many different topics together.

Can you give some examples of groups whose heritage warrants greater focus?

At my Chair, two doctoral students worked on topics that are closely linked to the project and deal with the heritage of minorities. Maria Kouvari is looking at the heritage of children, picking up on aspects such as the shameful history of children who were taken away from their parents and brought up in institutions, as was the case with traveller communities, for example. Those affected were usually left traumatised. It's important to reach out to and engage with these people. To ask them whether it's important to them that, for example, the children's home is preserved because it contains their history and the story of their injustice. And to talk to them about the extent to which their fate should be included in the rationale for conserving a building or site.

Another example of a different handling of the heritage of individuals is the construction of the Grande Dixence Dam in the Valais. There is already a completed thesis on this by Rune Frandsen, which won the ETH Medal last year. The building that accommodated the mainly Swiss workers (known as the 'Ritz') still stands next to the dam, which was built in the mid-20th century. The building is inventoried as a potential protected structure. On photos of the site taken during the dam's construction, the building is surrounded by wooden barracks. This is where the guest workers were housed. They've since been demolished. Wouldn't it have been important to at least preserve a few of those wooden barracks? And if not, what do we need to tell the story of guest workers? Because it wouldn't have been possible to build the dam without them. Just like the construction of other dams, tunnels or infrastructure facilities. We owe part of our prosperity to these people.

In terms of minorities, you don't necessarily have to even look outside of Switzerland. Because we also have linguistic minorities nearly everywhere here. And this also raises questions: What are the meeting places for Italian-speaking people in Zurich? What is important to them? Take Coopi, for example - one of the most important meeting spots for Italian speakers in Zurich. Doesn't the over 100-year-old institution that has now unfortunately closed deserve protected monument status?

What is happening now with the proposals for more inclusive heritage?

We're compiling a database with the 100 or so buildings and sites chosen by students. It is intended to serve as a sort of special inventory. In Zurich there are different special inventories, for example for school buildings, or for more recent buildings constructed after 1960. Why not a Switzerland-wide special inventory for the heritage of minorities, fringe groups and people without a lobby?

What is a special inventory for?

A monument inventory is basically a collection of buildings and sites that are potentially worthy of protection. The definitive assessment only happens later. A special inventory comprises comparable buildings from a specific period or building type. It supplements existing inventories and provides a good overview. It facilitates the selection process and helps understand which are the really important buildings that we should care for.

Who decides what is worthy of protection in the special inventory?

The decision is made by the relevant officials in the offices. There are also projects with a more community-driven approach in various cantons and cities, for example in Basel. But who actually knows about such projects and takes part in them? To me, that's the key question. This is why I think it's important to engage with those affected, for example also with young people. Not every skate park or graffiti wall is worth protecting. But maybe it's worth protecting a few as they are places with a special significance.

If we want to do justice to all those who have not had a voice until now, how will that affect the inventory of protected buildings?

A monument inventory is essentially always a work in progress. Every generation includes new buildings from earlier periods, re-interprets already protected monuments, or even questions them. The list of buildings with protected monument status therefore gets longer all the time. But as a percentage of the total building stock it won't necessarily increase as there's a lot being built. Depending on the region, around 5% of Switzerland's building stock is protected. Obviously, a lot more buildings and also a large number of sites are inventoried.

Will including additional groups make the inventory list even longer?

I don't believe that the list will get very much longer if we take account of the heritage of previously marginalised groups. Many of the buildings we're currently talking about are already in the inventory. Take, for example, the road bridge over the Rhine near Koblenz: its inventory listing mainly talks about the construction of the bridge, its historical significance, and how it influences the river basin. But the fact that during the Second World War the bridge was also a key escape route and a border crossing that for some meant the difference between life and death, is not mentioned in the inventory. We're interested in discussing the different levels of meaning of monuments. Some protected buildings are perhaps not only monuments, but also memorials, or signs of oppression.

Where would you place this additional information?

When it comes to assessing whether an inventoried building should get protected status, in other words when a monument report is compiled, longer texts are usually produced. Or if a protected building is restored, there is an accompanying publication that addresses all aspects of the building. And many protected buildings also feature small plaques that explain why the building has monument status. Here, too, a sentence on its meaning for certain groups could be interesting and helpful.

What would you say to critics who ask why we need more protected buildings and sites, including eyesores such as workers' barracks?

We're not saying that every building that has an inglorious past should be protected either. But maybe sometimes it might take an eyesore to tell the whole story. So-called 'uncomfortable monuments' are important memorials for future generations. Germany has several of these, and we're unfortunately now seeing how important they are. Switzerland also has some 'difficult' inventory items, such as the SBB workers' accommodation in Zurich. Or stations that during the Second World War were points of arrival for people who had been persecuted, or places of deportation. There are protected cemeteries, for example in Göschenen, where there is an 'intentional' memorial to the 199 people who lost their lives during the construction of the railway tunnel in the 19th century. On the other hand, historical buildings are 'unintentional' memorials. They acquire their significance over time and are not built especially to commemorate an event, but do so indirectly.

Apart from architectural heritage that is more inclusive than it is today, what still needs to change between now and the next Monument Protection Year in 50 years' time for you to be able to say 'we've done our homework'?

I think we need to try and take a more holistic view of protected buildings. The preservation and reuse of building materials and climate-friendly building will play a bigger role in future. But sustainability is unfortunately not a protection criterion for monument preservation. That would make a difference.

In what respect?

I once put forward a provocative proposal on this at a panel discussion at the National Museum Zurich. What if heritage conservation no longer selects the 5 to 10 per cent of buildings that should be protected, but given the incredible waste of resources in construction, the 5 to 10 per cent of buildings that have no or very little value? Obviously, this wasn't really meant seriously as institutional heritage preservation has too much to do as it is. And sustainable management of the total building stock is probably more a whole-of-society task than heritage preservation.

It used to be the case that heritage conservation would select valuable buildings and structures which were then carefully preserved. The rest of the stock was then rebuilt or converted and adapted to new conditions. Unfortunately, it now seems that anything that is not selected for heritage conservation is pulled down. So indirectly it also decides what is demolished. That is obviously a problem for a field that is essentially about preservation.