| Abstrakt: |
The recent surge in interest in 'young' heritage is coupled with a growing need for a scientifically based framework for dealing with it. This article examines the specific characteristics of 'young heritage', how it is evaluated, and the knowledge required for that. The term 'young heritage' is not easy to define because the minimum historical distance required for assessing or protecting a building as heritage differs from country to country. More important than an exact definition, however, is increased awareness and greater recognition of the special characteristics of this heritage. One of these characteristics is materiality. This refers not just to the building materials and techniques used but includes its positioning with respect to the wider building culture in which it is rooted. The final decades of the twentieth century were characterized by a distinctive materiality, and this too needs to be included in any value assessment. To work out how this might be done using existing value assessment methods, this article looks at the method used since 2021 by the Brussels-Capital Region in drawing up its Inventory of Architectural Heritage. This method is based on ten heritage values and six heritage criteria. The individual values and criteria are not strictly defined but rather described, so as to allow room for interpretation. And instead of dealing with the values individually, the goal is an integrated approach in which different values and criteria are able to support and reinforce one another. This provides opportunities for recognizing the specificity of young heritage and for emphasizing the importance therein of materiality. The article then applies the Brussels method, with a particular focus on materiality, to two case studies: the ASLK apartment building (engineer and architect Philippe Samyn, Brussels, 1985-1986) and the largescale housing project 'De Drevekens' (AUSIA design office, Sint-Pieters-Woluwe, 1975-1977). The first case study demonstrates that a proper assessment of the technical value requires that the materials used be assessed within the context of the wider building culture. The second case study illustrates the fact that materials without any special technical value can still play an important role in other heritage values. Both case studies attest to the benefits of an integrated approach to heritage values and the importance of materiality in the recognition of young heritage. One major challenge is acquiring sufficient in-depth insight into the materiality to arrive at an accurate and specific interpretation of the heritage values and criteria. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
