Open Heritage Participatory Platform

Organizing, Promoting and Enabling Heritage Re-use through Inclusion, Technology, Access, Governance and Empowerment

Register

Praga District, Warsaw - Blueprint Navigator

Participation in figures

Last activity

  • New proposal at Normative Criteria for Relevant Evaluation
    Promotes exchange (economic, knowledge, civic support, etc.) with other not-for-...
    Involving the exchange with other not-for-profit and non-governmental organizationsis the mutually beneficial sharing of ideas, data, experience, and expertise. Manypotential outcomes from this reciprocity usually bring social and economic benefits offor the partners and greater independence from for-profit corporations withexploitative and non-sustainable practices. Reference:Daniela Patti & Levente Polyåk. 2017. Funding the Co-operative City. Cooperative City Books.
  • New proposal at Normative Criteria for Relevant Evaluation
    Promotes exchange (economic, knowledge, civic support, etc.) with other not-for-...
    Involving the exchange with other not-for-profit and non-governmental organizations is the mutually beneficial sharing of ideas, data, experience, and expertise. Many potential outcomes from this reciprocity usually bring social and economic benefits of for the partners and greater independence from for-profit corporations with exploitative and non-sustainable practices. Reference: Daniela Patti & Levente PolyĂĄk. 2017. Funding the Co-operative City. Cooperative City Books.
  • New proposal at Normative Criteria for Relevant Evaluation
    Co-governance arrangements inclusive of different communities and stakeholders
    Co-governance is a multi-stakeholder governance arrangement whereby the community emerges as a key actor and partners up with at least one of the other four actors of the quintuple helix governance scheme of urban innovation. This approach builds on the theories elaborated to explain governance approaches used to stimulate innovation such as the triple helix and it implies the involvement in urban governance of five categories of actors: 1) active citizens, “commoners” and practicioners of the urban commons, social innovators, city makers, organized and informal local communities; 2) public authorities; 3) private economic actors (national or local businesses; small and medium enterprises; social businesses; neighborhood or district-level businesses) 4) civil society organizations and NGOs; 5) knowledge institutions (i.e. school; Universities; research centers; cultural centers; public, private, civic libraries). This model foresees an active role of the cognitive institutions as entrepreneurial and engaged universities. Co-governance arrangements are aimed at empowering the actors involved and stimulate resource integration through social and economic pooling. They ultimately trigger processes of inclusive urban development. Key References Etzkowitz, Henry and Leydesdorff, Loet. 1995. ‘The Triple Helix:university–industry–government relations: a laboratory forknowledge-based economic development’, EASST Review, 14(1): 14–19. Ranga, M. and Etzkowitz, Henry 2013. ‘Triple Helix Systems: An Analytical Framework for Innovation Policy and Practice in the Knowledge Society”, Industry and Higher Education 27 (4): 237-262. Etzkowitz, Henry. 2003. Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: the invention of the entrepreneurial university, Research Policy, 32(1):109-121. Foster, Sheila and Iaione, Christian. 2016. “The City as a Commons,” Yale Law Review, 34 (2): 281 Julia, Lane. 2016. Big Data for Public Policy: The Quadruple Helix. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 35,3. Ostrom, Elinor. 2010. Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Global Environmental Change. 20: 550-557. Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the commons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bingham, Lisa. 2009. Collaborative Governance: Emerging Practices and the Incomplete Legal Framework for Public and Stakeholder Voice, Journal of Dispute Resolution.
  • New proposal at Normative Criteria for Relevant Evaluation
    Fostering ecological sustainability
    Fostering ecological sustainability in adaptive heritage reuse – extending life cycle of material and resources by reusing structural elements and recycling materials. Ecological sustainability in heritage reuse can include such aspects as improvement of energy efficiency, use of renewable energy systems, reduction of resources consumption, reduction of building and demolition waste, recycling of waste, contribution to the growing environmental awareness and education, safeguarding of natural heritage, including cultural landscapes, brownfield redevelopment and reduction of urban sprawl. Sources:  Cassar, May (2009). “Sustainable Heritage: Challenges and strategies for the Twenty-First Century.” APT Bulletin: The Journal of Preservation Technology 40, no. 1: 3-11. Powter, Andrew, and Susan Ross (2005). “Integrating Environmental and Cultural Sustainability for Heritage Properties.” APT Bulletin: The Journal of Preservation Technology 36, no. 4: 3-11. Vardopoulos, Ioannis, and Eleni Theodoropoulou (2018). “Does the New ‘FIX’ Fit? Adaptive Building Reuse Affecting Local Sustainable Development: Preliminary Results.” The IAFOR Conference on Heritage & the City, November 2018, https://papers.iafor.org/submission43399/ Yung, Esther H. K., & Edwin H. W. Chan (2012). “Implementation challenges to the adaptive reuse of heritage buildings: Towards the goals of sustainable, low carbon cities.” Habitat International 36: 352-361.
  • New proposal at Normative Criteria for Relevant Evaluation
    Protecting multiple heritage values related to an object
    1) PROTECTING MULTIPLE HERITAGE VALUES RELATED TO AN OBJECT Adaptive reuse practices expand the concept of “authenticity and integrity” of heritage objects to a variety of heritage values which include together “materials and substance, use and function, tradition and techniques, location and setting, spirts and feeling and other internal or external factors” (Nara document on Authenticity 1994). Hence, the protection of these values implies a shift from the heritage as thing approach to heritage as an ongoing process (Knippenberg 2019). Although the variety of aspects to be considered might create conflicts along the adaptation process (e.g. community needs vs compatible use, continuous access vs physical preservation, etc.) the equal care of -often- opposite elements foster the understanding and integration of existing heritage status, values and conditions into the protecting process, providing the reasons for all proposed interventions (ICOMS 2019). By protecting multiple heritage values as something in flux and adaptable to an ever-changing present (Harrison 2013, Högberg 2016), it acknowledges the need for an ongoing maintenance, participated by local communities and supported by dynamic approaches to respectful and compatible adaptive reuse and management (ICOMS 2019). - Harrison, Rodnay. 2013. Heritage: Critical Approaches. London: Routledge. - Högberg, Anders. 2016. Rodney Harrison: Heritage. Critical Approaches. London: Routledge, 2013. - Norwegian Archaeological Review, pp. 268.ICOMOS. 2019. - “European quality principles for EU-funded interventions with potential impact upon culturalheritage.”  Paris: Manual. ICOMOS International. - ICOMS. 1994.“Nara document on authenticity.”Availableat:whc.unesco.org/document/116018. - Karim van. 2019.“Towards an Evolutionary Heritage Approach: Performances, Embodiment, Feelings andEffects.”In AESOP 2019 Conference: Planning for Transition: Book of Abstracts, 166–166. Association ofEuropean Schools of Planning (AESOP).
  • New proposal at Engagement Strategy
    Enabling Heritage Re-use
    Heritage re-use is a tool to link the past to the future. Heritage re-use support local identity and creates material and immaterial value for society. Society should enable heritage re-use for a wide range of share- and stakeholders. It should become a common place that not only heritage professionals and real-estate developers know how to play the game, but broaden the inner-circle of heritage re-developers to communities, individuals and non-profit organisations in order to spread and keep the wider benefits over society as a whole. Public authorities play an important role in enabling heritage re-use. Through subsidies, facilities and regulations it can enable wider societal involvement and benefits.
  • New proposal at Engagement Strategy
    Technology
    Connecting online is a prerequisite for healthy economies, heritage reuse and place making in the 21st century and was even proposed as a human right at the UN in 2011. However, a challenge is creating more equitable and accessible standards of internet connection. Technology at it's best supports infrastructures of communities and networks to create more accessible places online to connect.
  • New proposal at Engagement Strategy
    Access
    'There is no heritage without accessibility, since there is no heritage without community. The community can be large or small, on-site or virtual, and access can mean a variety of ways of entering the heritage process; and all these change in time. Heritage is created via interaction between the human and tangible or intangible assets from the past, as well as between human and human through the assets, by attributing value to these assets. Everyone should have a potential access to benefitting from and contributing to their heritage, even if they choose not to access it at the moment.'

Please sign in

Forgot your password?

Or