The Atfort Ateliers - Lessons learned on preservation through development of military heritage. Integration Report

Transcription

1 The Atfort Ateliers - Lessons learned on preservation through development of military heritage Integration Report

2 Project partners: New Dutch Waterline / Government Service for Land and Water management Medway Council The Governing Body of Suomenlinna Network of Vaubanís major sites Fort Monostor Non-profit Ltd. Kaunas city municipal administration City of Venice Paola Heritage Foundation University of Nova Gorica Department Spandau of Berlin (Citadel of Spandau) Provincial Government of Antwerp KAUNAS CITY MUNICIPALITY 2.

3 INDEX Introduction On fortified heritage The characteristics of fortified heritage 8 Defense systems 1.3 The territorial and the societal context Ownership Undertaking the first steps 14 The ateliers Conservation and restoration Governance, accessibility and safety Multifunctional adaptive reuse Multifunctional reuse training Funding and Financing Vegetation, landscaping and spatial planning Communication and marketing, branding Alternative labour force Management plans Sustainability Overall conclusions Appendix 1- Index of the Atfort documents 44 3.

4 Introduction The consensus generated from various international debates on cultural heritage has shown its importance in local sustainable development for its numerous impacts on local dynamics. In Europe, cultural heritage has become the tangible representation of centuries of historical attributes where forces of national identity and proofs of cultural diversity are often coexistent. Such coexistence demonstrates that different generations and different cultures have accepted and slowly adapted the tangible inheritance from previous civilizations, giving it new functions and new cultural meanings. Fortified heritage, especially if we refer to the complex of objects dating back to the mid 20 th century, has been associated to the sad moments of European history, so its acceptation and appropriation came with a far more difficult process, with different speeds in each country. All over Europe, military fortresses are losing their original, defensive function. Mostly, they constitute an enormous set of heritage that needs important investments to be protected and restored, thus requiring the adoption of appropriate measures, including innovative redevelopment strategies. This document represents a glimpse of the numerous ideas that 11 European partners could exchange within the ATFORT project so far, sharing their knowledge on issues that emerge when reuse and redevelopment of these fortified sites is at stake. European integration in this sense was is not only about abandonment of military defense structures, but also about the exchange of expertise, mutual learning and cross border collaboration. Redeveloping of military heritage is in fact not only of symbolic importance to Europe, but also beneficial in terms of improving the economic climate in European regions. It contributes to the development of a creative and sustainable service economy, often providing opportunities to facilitate fastest growing economic sector in Europe: cultural tourism. The availability of these, empty military structures (bunkers, fortresses, citadels, fortified towns), raises similar questions in almost every European country. Questions such as: Should these buildings be up kept, demolished, or redeveloped? How can redevelopment processes be started, financed and organized? What kind of reuse is possible and desired? Who cares? This report highlights some of the main thoughts that were raised and discussed at different levels, mixing theoretical achievements and practical experiences of participants, offering possible answers better developed in the project tool-kit. This report provides us with an overview on which knowledge was exchanged during these meetings. In addition, it offers specific tools that are useful when redevelopment of a site is at stake. 4.

5 In the second year of the ATFORT project, 11 thematic ateliers were organized by the partners to exchange knowledge on three thematically distinguished issues. These ateliers were meant to give guidelines to the three main topics of the ATFORT project, namely enabling conditions, multifunctional reuse, and governance. 5.

6 1.1 On fortified heritage To make clear the basis of the discussion, we should make a small distinction or clarification when speaking of fortified heritage, necessary to understand the framework of collaboration in the ATFORT project. Such distinction refers both to the architectural and typological features and to the present use, and gets confirmation from the examples that partner made during their presentations. In this light, it should be also underlined that the ATFORT partners represent a very peculiar stake of the fortified heritage, paradoxically the most fragile in terms of preservation perspective. In this respect, we could make (maybe force) the following definitions: AA. Walled towns and citadels, as living centers. They should be considered as historic towns, with potentially very dynamic socio-economic relationships among individuals and collectivities. The life in them continued despite the use of the fortifications and the way they should be preserved does not differ from the one adopted for historic cities. BB. Castles. These architectural ensembles could have two different, opposite, destination at present, that is as archaeological remains and privately used objects. In this regard, they can be considered as any other monumental building in urban policy development and heritage preservation spheres, without raising specific questions and concerns about preservation, restoration and reuse. This categorization is 6. also depending on the issue of authenticity, pointed out in one of the ateliers, that refers to the uniqueness of the object and the way it arrived to the present generations. C. C Defense systems. These complexes developed as a consequence of the development of the attacking technologies, requiring completely new defensive and living concepts. The protection of a strategic object, usually a city or a region, should have been obtained by a large net of defense buildings were only soldiers would have lived, thus requiring different living standards. It should be stated that this net of building was considered in itself temporary (lasting as much as the war would had required), as time showed when it became obsolete in few decades due to the fast development of was techniques and technologies. These systems include objects as fortresses, bunkers, barracks, etc. Given that fortified towns and sites could include themselves other fortification types, as the reality shows how the three categories mixed together as a consequence of historic layers overlapping, the preservation and re-use of these three categories requires totally different approaches, efforts, ideas and is presently based on different government/governance schemes. The ATFORT project mostly dealt with the category C. There are fortified towns and islands (Suomenlinna and many sites in the Vauban network, as Besançon), citadels (Besançon, Span-

7 dau) and fortress systems with larger and smaller fortresses (Antwerp, NDW, Kaunas, Corradino, Fort Amherst, Forte Marghera, Fort Monostor). From this first filtering some aspects are immediately clear: 1. that fortifications inside the urban areas are more likely to be preserved, while fortification far from urban areas find more difficult conditions for their functional reuse; 2. these fortifications and all the objects included were meant to have a protective function, supposed to end upon the end of the conflict. Their immediate obsolescence did not permit, as to previous fortification categories, time for absorption in the urban context; 3. These fortification were meant to be self-sufficient, thus mostly devoid of infrastructural basic connections; 7.

8 1.2 The characteristics of fortified heritage Defense systems To realize the constraints of such sites, it would be important to start from their architectural, structural, location and cultural characteristics. and contextual characteristics. Defense systems have in common some functional and technical features that may open a range of possibilities in terms of re-use and valorization, although they also limit the traditional channels for restoration and reuse. The main difference in typology of the buildings is: normal building versus bomb proof building. A normal building has four walls and a roof. Examples are: soldiers barracks, officers houses, office buildings, (work) sheds, magazines etc. A bomb proof buildin is for sinstance a gun powder mazagine or underground soldiers barracks or gun battery. These buildings have very thick walls, are hewn out of rock or are ground covered. The latter category are for various reasons more difficult to reuse. Among them we should enlist: The architectural characteristics are very interesting, but they are often not unique 1. Usually the typological and morphological development of the forts, bunkers and other objects in the defense systems were repeated according to the most advanced standards in the military defense discipline (In this regard, architecture is often usual in the branch, rarely unique). In particular: 1. simple brickwork in local stone or bricks; 2. arches and vaults to sustain earth filling; 3. simple wooden windows and doors, when still in place; 4. simple wooden, concrete, brick, sand and stone made pavements; 5. limited decorations (entrance doors, columns, etc.) 6. presence of basic buildings as barracks with thin walls and metallic roofs; 7. concrete works, often in very good conditions. The location of these buildings is often unfavorable being they conceived to be far from inhabited settlements. 1. Either they were included in the city suburban area, thus provided with basic connection/accessibility, or they 1 It must be clarified that this statement refers to architectural features, not strategic ones. From the view point of defensive purposes, each fortification was elaborated through continuous adaptations to the local conditions and foreseen dangers, thus involving a high degree of innovation. 8.

9 should be reached by alternative means; 2. Internal and external accessibility to these places can be sometimes very difficult, especially in mountainous areas, since there was no need in the past to improve transportation modes for civilians. These complexes were self-sufficient, that is with no dependence with the surrounding area. This resulted in basic primary services, as sewage, electricity, energy production. strategic speculation on the potential re-use without assessment. Given the architectural characteristics of fortification, we may assume however that the older structures are paradoxically easier to reuse due to their structural and material characteristics, given the fact that fortification of the 20 th and 21 st century introduce largely concrete and diminished the interior spaces, restricting though reuse comfort and destinations. 1. Usually there are no modern infrastructures in the sites, although their spatial and structural characteristics allow easy interventions; 2. Vegetation and other types of cultivation were considered part of the system, but these were never imagined to interfere with the structural integrity of the complexes. The above aspects are fundamental in any decision making process when dealing with these buildings: Not only their use qualities (surfaces, volumes, appearance, etc.) drive decision, but also their weaknesses/opportunities. The ATFORT experiences exchange of the thematic ateliers often highlighted the impact of such characteristics, prior any 9.

10 1.3 The territorial and the societal context Within the ATFORT project partners, by exchanging their experiences and viewpoints, have acknowledged that, before any assessment on the problems to convert a fort into a new living object, the discussion should also focus on the meaning such fortification has on the society and its contexts. Regardless of the potentialities and architectural peculiarities of each structure, the entire approach is based on the emotional and aesthetic impact that structure has on the society. History of cultural heritage has shown how much cultural heritage can positively and negatively influence the individuals behaviors, making the transition sometimes hard if not properly introduced by a socio-cultural education. Examples worldwide, from the Bamyian Buddhas to the Mostar Bridge, from the Chinese historic centers to the recently destroyed Lenin Statue in Kiev, show that cultural heritage, as representation of a different period and a different culture, could be a point of frictions, so much to impede any valorization action. This is why some fortifications are more flexible to change (as those ones that never experienced war), while others have such an important socio-historic meaning to prevent any kind of flexibility and fantasy on future reuse. In this regard, in many case, even when transformation is allowed, it has to respect the cultural context of the area and the potential expectations of the local population. 10.

11 1.4 Ownership It follows that one of the primary issue to be addressed is the ownership, which is far from being irrelevant for fortified sites. In economics, ownership and the distinction among private and public property is ruled by the concepts of rivalry and excludability 2. The case of fortifications, principally owned by the public sector, highlighted that certain groups of people care about them and thus would invest themselves for protection and restoration purposed. In the ATFORT atelier partners assisted to many examples of appropriation by the community of their fortification, in response to the lack of financial resources and commitment by the authority, including the selling of the property 3. in many examples how public spaces were appropriated by a community of interested, passionate individuals that took care of it: this is not only volunteers glue, it is about care. In this perspective we should consider not only the sentences who is the owner? and who pays? but mostly who cares? This distinction opens 3 different scenarios: 1. The site is a public good. Defense systems and their parts were born as public for public interest. Most of them remained public and are under the public control. The public, as seen in the governance section, can decide whether to run them as public good or alienate them to other spheres, being this related to other public authorities, privates, or third sector. If the defense system remains public, all other enabling conditions should be pursued to reach the highest standard, that is: Improving the internal and external accessibility and make it appropriate for all kind of users, with a special attention to handicapped people; Making the defense system and the different site safe from all viewpoints, through tangible interventions/measures and communication activities; 2 As an example, the goods that make two individuals rivals and excludable are purely private and are those that cannot be shared in any way, as an apple If I have an apple it make us rivals, because you also want it, and exclude you, because if I eat it you cannot. The goods that do not arise any competition, that is without either rivalry and excludability, are purely public, as the air. In between we can find the goods that do create rivalry but not excludability, called private common goods, as opposite to the club goods, that is those characterized by no rivalry and by excludability. The scheme below explain the concept (X. Greffe) Indivisibility (Or No- rivalry), YES Indivisibility (Or No- rivalry) NO Exclusion (or no free access) YES Club Goods Private Goods Exclusion (or no free access) NO Public Goods Common Goods. As an example, club goods are those that are enjoyed by the members (ex. A tennis court, a specialized library, services of a professionals association, etc.), while examples of common goods could be a public square and the close neighborhoods, friendship (A. Klamer), an abandoned or dismissed fort. 3 Selling cultural heritage is still considered by the local communities as a loss of commitment, a defeat, of the public sector. 11.

12 All infrastructures and services should be offered, whatever the destination of the site would be (archaeological park or convention center or hospital). The destination use will determine the degree of infrastructures needed. As an addition, it advisable that infrastructural interventions are taken according to sustainability perspectives, that is adopting the solutions with the lowest impact for heritage and environment (production of energy, sewage system, etc.); The destination of the site should be decided with a long term perspective. In this regard the public authority should put in place a management plan reflecting an overall governance process as suggested by the EU White Paper on Governance of 2001; The allocation of the resources, being them only financial or of a different nature, should be done with the lowest risk and visioning the highest possible impact in terms of benefits to the society and/or the local community; In respect to the above, a clear understanding of the socio-economic context is fundamental to determine the needs of the area around the defense system. This analysis can give indications on the priorities to satisfy eventual, possible lacks or weaknesses; Restoration should be carried out according to the highest international standards. The theory of conservation, although depending from case to case, is presently quite clear and the interventions should be exemplary for those who use or visit the sites. 22. The site became private and is presently considered a private good. In this case, we have to underline that there can be the overall and continuous tension with the local/national/international community that recognize a failure by the national or local government in protecting such important memorial places. This means that there will exist a possibilities of infinite enemies for the site owner, those who think that the place should have been given to them or not alienated. When the site is private, other conditions are almost not influent, cause no obligations are in place except safety 4. As a general rule, how- 4 if a defense system is owned by an individual who decides to live in it, he will be in the position to keep it as he prefers, respecting only the basic hygienic rules and if applicable the monument protection rules. 12.

13 ever, if the site will be exploited for commercial purposes, the more the site owner will implement the other conditions (accessibility, safety, restoration, reply to the local needs, extension and quality of infrastructures and restoration quality, coordination with other local stakeholders) the highest possibility of success there will be, also in reaching communities acceptation The site can be considered as a common good and the kind of legal ownership is less important than the one based on use. Somehow, this is the case for example of a Trust where the physical asset, the heritage, is projected to the coming generations and should be though preserved, also through redevelopment, the legal ownership remains public, but the way the site is redeveloped can be more flexible to restrictions. This approach or situation create conditions for groups of individuals to appropriate the site, care about it. 13.

14 1.5 Undertaking the first steps Given these three preliminary conditions about fortified sites, we can state that: Fortified sites are expensive, due to their state of conservation, abandonment, extension, etc.; Fortified sites move emotions (rejection and/or attraction) and not only the heritage community is concerned; If the legal ownership of a fortification is clear, its belonging could be pretty problematic considering the previous 2 points; 14.

15 The ateliers The ateliers were held in the period from November 2012 to November 2013 in all sites of the partnership. It was agreed in the preparation meetings that each partner would have organized the atelier according to their preferred topic, if possible, choosing from the list of topics highlighted in the previous meetings. The ateliers should have either formally or informally addressed also the three main themes of ATFORT namely (enabling conditions, multifunctional reuse and Governance (Governance Models). In specific the ateliers were: 1. Conservation and Restoration, held in Suomenlinna, Helsinki (FI) on November 2012; 2. Accessibility and Safety and Governance Models, held in Fort Monostor, Komárom (HU) on February 2013; 3. Multifunctional Reuse, held in Forte Marghera, Venice (IT) and Northern Primorska Region (SL) on March 2013; 4. Multifunctional Adaptive Reuse of Fortifications and Military Sites, Paola Corradino (MT) on April 2013; 5. Funding and Financing, Kaunas (LT), held on May 2013; 6. Vegetation, Landscaping and Spatial Planning, Besançon (FR), held on June Communication, Marketing and Branding, Spandau Zitadelle, Berlin (DE), held on August 2013; 8. Alternative Labor Forces, Fort Amherst, Medway (UK), held on September 2013; 9. Management Plans, Antwerp (BE), held on October 2013; 10. Sustainability and UNESCO, Utrecht (NL) held on November 2013; 15.

16 2.1 Conservation and restoration Helsinki November 2012 The first atelier held in Suomenlinna on the topic of restoration and conservation served to share information on 2 different levels: 1. Empirical, based on the experiences of participants despite their professional backgrounds; 2. Theoretical, based on the achievements of the doctrine and the academic researches of the last 40 years. The presentations and the discussions highlighted the need of a higher integration of the two levels, showing how the sites are sometimes missing specialized staff on preservation leading a relatively flexible approach to the restoration of the fortification that may take to contrasts. Considering the theoretical achievements in the doctrine, the initial presentations clarified that the history of conservation showed a slow shift from the preservation of monumental objects (as a manifestation of national identity) to a more integrated and territorial concept that is embracing all cultural manifestations. This shift though cannot go beyond the basic approaches to conservation, different on the basis of traditions and geographical conditions, as: Conservation - integral conservation, which is targeting the conservation of the objects without and critical decision on the less and more valuable aspects of it. It should be underlined that this approach is usually accepted by the international community in case of extraordinary examples of architecture and art, especially when having a critical approach is impossible and very dangerous. Restoration - The stylistic restoration, which is targeting on the base of scientific data and proofs, the original state of the buildings. This approach is sometimes shared by the international community when the original plans and drawings clearly defined the necessary steps for reconstruction and when there are not relevant sacrifices in terms of architecture and history. Sometimes this concept is also including the reconstruction, which admits the adoption of new materials. The critical restoration, which is allowing the distinction of the features that can be considered more and less valuable to be preserved, thus involving the potential sacrifice of historic layers and manifestations. This approach is the most common today and is based on a good combination of modern needs and historic relevance, filtered by specialized professionals in the field of conservation. It should be mentioned that these approaches can be easily identified in the professionals, but also within the civil society and the passionates. People in- 16.

17 terested in fortification would love to take them back to their original state, while historians of the first world war would love to highlight the traces of that conflict, as well as anthropologists would be in favor to preserve the human manifestations, as prisoners drawings in the walls. These scenarios, widely mentioned during the atelier especially in the final workshops, also opened another important remarks regarding authenticity. Thinking about these fortifications, one should recognize that there was a moment for them to be necessary and built, a period to be used and the moment of dismissal due to obsolescence. This simple historic line shows how anything we find in a fortification could be considered authentic as witness of history. On the other side, we should consider that the main authenticity in architectural terms is given by the conceptual design of the site, its working as a complex machine, making mostly important its overall working. In this regard the heritage values enlisted by English heritage should be clearly understood to define the potential significance of a fortification in a specific area, in particular: Historic value, measuring the information a site can give in the history of architecture, engineering and society; Evidential values, addressing the potential of the site to reveal new information on past activities; Communal value, referring to the means of people and the emotions it can evoke; Aesthetic value, which is how the appearance of a building affects people. Within the restoration theory a very important room should be given to maintenance. Daily maintenance in fortifications was one of the main activity of soldier in non-conflict periods, thus the structures themselves were conceived to be constantly refurbished taking advantage to the low cost of human resources as well as of the permanent use of the different parts of the buildings/sites. However, the overall discussion on the preservation of forts is based on a totally new challenge: finding for them an appropriate destination and use. Inevitably, new destinations involve other possible vales at stake, as the use value and the economic value, that give force to the overall motto of ATFORT preservation through development. Linking the previously mentioned concepts, the site of Suomenlinna introduced a very important practice, at the base of the site constant preservation activities: the minimal intervention. The minimal intervention is mostly generated by the huge extension of the site of Suomenlinna (as well as many other fortifications in Europe) and the impossibility to undertake heavy restoration works. The main idea of the minimal intervention is to adopt simple traditional solutions by means of relatively cheap materials in respect of the concept of reversibility. Useful exam 17.

18 ples are the consolidation of some plasters characterized by soldiers graffiti, the addition of wooden floors above the historic ones, the removal of unstable plasters on walls and vaults showing the structures, the insertion of new installations without intrusive solutions on the structures, etc. A very important tool in the structure of the site management if the maintenance laboratory, where the preservation of the finishing of the site are carried out (doors, windows, stones, etc.). CONCLUSIONS: Approaching a fortification for its reuse firstly asks for a proper understanding of the structure and the significance of the site. Conservation and restoration project are not design project because they start from a given object with given values and there are consolidated techniques to adapt old structures to new uses. When operating restoration works the issues of authenticity and reversibility are extremely important to adopt solutions in the respect of the past towards the future. The life of a building can be prolonged by radical interventions, but also through maintenance activities which better respect authenticity constraints. Professionals in the restoration and maintenance are important. Conservation works cannot be led by non specialized professionals (conservation architects, trained operators, experienced craftsmen), to avoid the risk of expensive and resources consuming irreversible mistakes. 18.

19 2.2 Governance, accessibility and safety Komárom, February 2013 The second atelier in Komárom addressed 3 different topics partly related each other, taking the advantage of the site and its different fortifications in need of urgent solutions on the matters. Governance This topic was particularly interesting since crosscutting the main objectives of the ATFORT project, whose 3 leading areas of investigations, namely enabling conditions, multifunctional reuse, governance models. The presentation and the discussion on the topic highlighted different understandings of the concept, which should be briefly reviewed as a result of the debate and the doctrine. Governance should be intended as a process and a structure to properly develop an area in a integrated way and by means of vertical and horizontal cooperation of the stakeholders involved, initially started from the main administrative layers in the national framework. The definition of governance given by the EU through its white paper in 2001, clearly defines the borders of this concept for future uses. However, governance is also considered as a possible structure to manage a site, referring so to the possible ways stakeholders can organize to properly develop an area. The debate in the atelier showed that additional discussions should be made in this regard, but made also clear that: 1. New governance is needed at European level and this governance should be organized on homogeneous regions, not on political national administrative constraints; 2. Heritage sites, fortifications included, should investigate new forms of management based on mutual vertical and horizontal collaboration of the stakeholders. The notion of common good vs. public good contributes to feed these 2 needs and helps in distinguishing governance from government. The multiple examples in the atelier showed that the proper management structure of a fortification depends on: Its destination and use (private or public, cultural, commercial, residential, etc.; Its users (private owners, the public in general, specific interested passionate, etc.); The opportunities related to the future development of a site (investment scenarios, EU funded projects participation, public schemes adoption, etc.); The stakeholders involved and the interest of citizens; The socio-cultural background and tradition (habit in privatization processes, identity issues, etc.). In fact the examples showed that some sites depict their national tendency and the difficulty to enter into new schemes. As an example, in the case of the Dutch 19.

20 tradition the privatization is considered pretty normal, while in former socialist countries the starting situation is of fully public management, also directly from the central government. The afternoon workshop pointed out 4 important criteria to define the appropriate governance, namely: the responsibility and the ownership; the quality and extension of protection of the site; the financing of preservation and valorization activities; the appropriateness and the quality of the management. The SWOT analysis of the above criteria on different administrative/geographic levels (national, regional, local and site) has highlighted the following conclusion: at the moment, there cannot be ideal management structures, being the higher governance level to be yet defined and shared. In a more integrated European Union this governance, also in heritage perspective, would be highly preferable. However, it can be said that: The management of the site from the highest levels of hierarchy (national) guarantees easier investments coming from national and international funds, as well as keeps the standard of conservation higher, although often failing in matching the residents needs and expectations. Most of partners showed publicly managed sites, even starting to undertake steps towards the private support, as in the case of fort Monostor, Suomenlinna, most of the forts of the Antwerp System, Forte Marghera, the forts of Malta and Kaunas, etc. The management of the site in the private hands is certainly speeding the restoration decisions and reducing the risks of critical points of deterioration, though clearly excluding the enjoyment of the public. Purely private management is also offering more flexible solutions in terms of fund-raising, counting on the innumerous possibilities and combinations of commercial activities. Examples of purely private use of fortifications came from the Dutch reality, where some forts, purchased from the State, were converted into private buildings, no more accessible if decided by the owners. Often mentioned in the atelier as practice of many partners is the public-private cooperation, based on the public ownership and the semiprivate management. This solution (actually more incline to the governance idea) permits flexibility of solution, speed in projects implementation, as well as public use restrictions/openness. An additional practice coming from the partners is related to the public-public cooperation, which was mainly pointed out in the English 20.

21 Trust. This cooperation, based on the work of organized association of volunteers invested of the right and duty to carry out basic activities for the preservation of the site, guarantee the public use of the site in the long run. Accessibility and safety The second day of the atelier focused on the topics of safety and accessibility, considered by the partners as critical in giving a new life to fortifications, which, as previously underlined, were conceived for completely different targets than the use by civilians. In this regard fortifications are, if not previously converted into a new use, show: Very difficult external accessibility, due to the fact they were imagined far from the urban centers, not to be easily reached by the enemies, not provided of basic infrastructural facilities, roads included. At present most of sites are reachable by private cars, but lack of connections with the public transportation directly to their entrance, reducing by far their use by larger masses of inhabitants and visitors (who are depending on public transportations nets); The internal paths were not originally conceived for civilians use, thus often absent. The list of problems is mostly recalling the muddy or roughly paved internal paths, the steep stairs, the absence of elevators, scarce visibility and lightened rooms, etc. Historic evidences of these buildings are often missing due to a lack of research on their development in time, as well as the absence of precise graphic and textual descriptions in the dedicated archives. This is leading to a very limited knowledge of the site, unable to be transferred to the large public. The use of the fortification was imagined for highly athletic and trained personnel, the soldiers, thus not foreseen specific protections or precautions. Fences and barriers were often missing for protection reasons and also for the assumption that soldiers were aware and comfortable with the site architectural features. The use of fortification often involved the use of polluting materials and practices, leaving the sites in poor conditions in terms of health care. Hydrocarbons, heavy metals, etc. were often left on the ground, causing a dangerous sedimentation. Also, although decontamination and demining of the sites has been carried out in the past, the risk of presence of potentially destructive explosives is real. Deteriorated materials and objects are often scarcely perceived by the new users, enhancing the risks of light and heavy injuries. It is often the case of unstable walls, bricks and stones, as well as the presence of iron elements sticking out the main structures. 21.

22 The presentations during the atelier showed that most sites have the same problems in terms of restituting and/ or giving better accessibility and safety conditions to the sites by means of very scarce financial resources. The degree of investments on a fortification to make it safe and accessible highly depends on the use destination decided and the basin of users foreseen. In general the discussion proposed the following main lines to point out solutions or approaches: The accessibility and safety of a site has to be adequate to the use and the users, but it has to be considered; Education on the site and on fortifications is a very relevant mean to make users aware of their own risks; Limiting the accessible area according to the means to upkeep it is important; all other parts of the fortifications should be restricted unless specific activities for specific users are foreseen; Governance activities to improve the requirements needed by specific authorities, as well as offer new solutions in administrative and legal terms (for example exhibiting a simple contract of self-responsibility of the final user at the entrance of the site); Exploring all possible means of transportation outside and inside the fortification to make it used and acknowledged; The World Heritage Status The Atelier in Komárom also served to welcome and investigate the interest by some partners to know more and possibly apply for the World Heritage Nomination. In this light, important international experts were invited to the meeting, to show the conceptual outline of the process, as well as other partners talked about their experiences in this, as Malta, Venice (Forte Marghera), Besancon and the Vauban Network, Suomenlinna. Many sites in fact hold specific architectural, historic, conceptual characteristics to be evaluated for the world Heritage Listing, but the process of nomination, whether successful or not, is extremely costly in terms of financial and human resources, which are the fundamental critical problems of fortifications owners. Prof. Tamás Fejérdy and prof. Jukka Jokilehto clearly explained, in the morning, the history of the World Heritage List, the functions of UNESCO and ICOMOS, the process of nomination and listing, as well as the documentation needed before, during and after this process. A careful study of the UNESCO WH Operational Guidelines and the detailed report of the atelier would help reader to know more. In this regard, the experts highlighted mostly that the nomination should be based on the significance of the site, underlining its world-wide uniqueness in terms of historic, architectural, cultural, societal and conceptual features. The presence in the list of other fortifications does not preclude, in principle, a new nomination of a fortified site if the 22.

23 conditions of uniqueness, authenticity and integrity are respected. However, the most important aspects for the AFORT project came from the discussion among participants on the theoretical introduction previously mentioned and the comments from experienced and non experienced sites representatives. The main issues raised were targeting the positive and negative impacts of being in the world heritage list, in particular: direct and indirect support towards the conservation actions, the improvement of protection means (targeted legislative measures, different approach by the local and natural authorities in planning documents, definition of buffer zones guaranteeing lesser urban sprawl, etc.) the labeling, thus the enhancement of the marketing strategy of the site, etc. new potential investors from the private sector, attracted by the international perspective given by the listing; the improvement of the tourism flows, including their direct and indirect, positive and negative externalities. place. The Listing certainly improves the conservation and protection prerequisites of the place (which are often discussed), but it takes a lot of effort to be finalized. To this, it seems essential to organize well coordinated governance actions attracting the interest and the active participation of all stakeholders of a site, because this can guarantee a wider engagement and thus more effective (and less costly for the site proponent) plan. CONCLUSIONS Considering the triple objective of the Atelier, the main reflection should be made on governance. External accessibility, safety and international cooperation for a site involve, in a changing Europe, a more strict cooperation of stakeholders. This cooperation does not exclude any typology of stakeholder, but respects the layers of relevance in terms of ownership. Without cooperation, efforts in infrastructure and promotion are almost unuseful and this is even more true in case of abandoned fortified sites looking for new compatible reuses. In general, partners agreed that the inclusion into the world Heritage List could turn as a very positive moment in the life of heritage sites, without precise and really predictable impacts on the societal structure and dynamics of the 23.

24 2.3 Multifunctional adaptive reuse Malta, Paola-Corradino, April 2013 The Atelier of Paola focused on the multifunctional reuse of fortification based on adaptive restoration projects and this was done by means of practical examples showing how different approaches could be, also in a lived fortification as the whole isle of Malta. Considering the extension of fortifications and their generalized state of abandonment, multifunctional reuse refers to the need of giving different destinations to a fortification to assure flexibility of activities, integration of protection and preservation actions, maximization of financial expenditures, satisfaction of the highest needs possible to keep the attention of different sectors of the society. The atelier confirmed the importance of the ATFORT motto sustainability through development that considers heritage sites, in specific fortifications, as an importance witness of our history, which needs to be transmitted to the coming generation with a new function (when historic facts permit) in respect of the most important cultural, societal and historic features. The site visit in Malta showed, in specific: The new design of the main entrance to La Valletta, which merge the traditional materials used in Malta (the local limestone) with new archetypes, with the aim of transmitting the country traditional openness and multicultural aspects by mean of transforming its symbols of isolation, the walls. Several examples of buildings converted to new uses, as the redesign of the ST. James Cavalier to host an arts center, the restoration of fort Ricasoli for the Malta Film commission, the reuse of the Bighi Hospital for the offices of Heritage Malta. Examples of apparently intrusive infrastructural solutions, as the new Lift Project and the Cruise Liner terminal, that highly impact on the city landscape profile, but consistently improve the internal accessibility of the city boosting the tourism flows toward new paths. Interventions on the landscape are also important (as in the case of the REPAIR activities in Malta and in the Cottonera waterfront) to change the image of fortification into leisure and livable places, opening precluded and abandoned areas to the citizens. Adaptive reuse is, however, at the clue of the modern conservation approach described in the atelier of Suomenlinna. Restoring a heritage building means hosting new destinations by preserving the architectural and historic assets: the principle is that the functions have to be flexible and adapt to the main characteristics, the values of the building and the interventions on the building could be invasive but as much reversible as possible. In the case of fortifications, where we confront with thousands of 24.

25 square meters and the possibility to host higher plateaus of users, functions can be many, possibly integrating each others. The invitation by Malta introduced different good approaches by the ATFORT partners, showing their experiences. We should recall: The citadel of Arras in the Vauban Network, where local authorities are trying to involve the private sector, somehow against the traditional French tide on heritage sites. The citadel, always public and in military hands, will be opened to the citizens that will take advantage recreational activities, parking and housing facilities, areas, bars and restaurants; The project for fort Amherst in proximity of the University of Kent, where a park, recreational educational and commercial activities will be opened, also thanks to the support of volunteer organizations; Other examples from Malta for the future as the cruise line terminal, the area of Corradino and its Navy prison, the Manoel area and Tigne, where a mix of functions will be implemented upon restoration; The long list of diverse uses of the fortifications in the New Dutch waterline, where several infrastructural projects also included radical changes in the buildings to guarantee high standards and integrality of use (Fort Vechten, Naarden, Geofort). The partnership could also revise the experiences of other international cooperation projects as REPAIR and AS- CEND, underlining as the multi-functionality, combined with governance and management attitudes, is the most flexible for appropriate and successful reuse. CONCLUSIONS Conservation activities in a fortification should be, in principle, based on the idea of flexibility and multi-functionality of the site, thus offering different attractions, reasons to stay for the users, as well as different functions to make the place interesting for many typology of users. This approach to multi-functionality is highly in respect to the concept of fortifications, once imagined to be small citadels for soldiers, where all living and working functions could have been implemented. The traditional one-function solution or the conservation without a clear understanding of the potential future uses has been shown to be not successful in huge sites as fortifications. When the reuse is not possible and gives high expections on unsuccessful results, as well as in case of high emotional and historic issues, sites could be also left to a monitored abandonment, as in case of archaeological sites. 25.

26 2.4 Multifunctional reuse training Italy and Slovenia, March 2013 In view of the previous atelier on multifunctional reuse, considering the present redevelopment of forte Marghera and planning the activities on the field of research on modern fortification in Europe, the Atelier held in Forte Marghera, Venice, with a site visit in Slovenia (Bovec, Kobarid and Nova Gorica), was meant to discuss the issue of training and plan the activities of the AT- FORT platform in the future, also upon the project end. The experience of partner, including the University of Nova Gorica as academic one, highlighted the lack of appropriate professional figures in the field of preservation and management of fortified heritage. In particular 3 significant skills are essential: 1. Knowledge of modern fortifications characteristics in terms of architectural typology, materials used, combat techniques/important architectural features depending on combat dynamics, rooms destinations; 2. Landscaping and vegetation in modern fortifications, that is capability of decision making in terms of past, present and potential changes to the appearance of the site; 3. Destination management, including maintenance, monitoring and uses control; 4. Marketing of heritage sites, with specific attention on modern fortifications. The topic is far from being banal and the ateliers showed that the existence of such profiles would have highly facilitated the discussions and channeled partners requests of assistance during the entire project. The organization of the atelier focused on the needs to adopt an interdisciplinary approach for the management of cultural heritage that could consider the different viewpoint in the decision making process and in the technical issues. Such integration has been highly recall by the ATFORT partners during the preliminary phases and the ateliers and is visible in the same atelier development. Multifunctional reuse and governance, for example, require competences and procedures that go beyond heritage planning and preservation and involve the decision making process at regional level. The skills required can be summarized in the following: Capacity to carry out an historic research on modern fortification; Ability in assessing the heritage site in its technical and material characteristics, but also in its significance and values; Basic knowledge and sound understanding of cultural heritage legislation, including landscape and environment; Basic knowledge of cultural sociology and anthropology; 26.

27 Good knowledge of history of defensive engineering, with special attention on the needs in defensive buildings; Basic knowledge of culture economics Sound knowledge of the theory and history of architectural conservation; Basic understanding of cultural tourism; Basic knowledge of marketing of cultural products and financing The good combination of these previous topics would give enough tools to a fortification manager to take the appropriate approach to its preservation. The deep knowledge of some of them would give competences either on heritage economics and management or in architectural preservation and landscape planning. The atelier went through these topics proposing to the partnership the establishment of an international interdisciplinary center for the research on the history and preservation of modern European fortifications to be based in Forte Marghera with different satellite vocational/regional center in Europe (in some partners sites). The idea, already elaborated by the city of Venice owner of the sites with Marco Polo System, experienced GEIE in fortifications research, led to the new plan of Forte Marghera, based on a multifunctional reuse concept. The plan of forte Marghera is in fact imagining a public, open access to the site, with an improved network of accessibility, with a main cultural destination supported by accommodation and food services. The International Research center should be located in 2 of the main buildings at the entrance and support local and international activities on modern fortifications. The study visit in Slovenia served to show how fortified heritage could also be left to its abandonment, especially in cases where the Wars and related events were too strong to be replaced in few generations. The trip to Kobarid, Bovec, Palmanova, where big human losses happened during the First World War, put in light the importance to accept, sometime, the simple existence of remains, just limiting to their integral conservation. 27.

28 2.5 Funding and Financing Kaunas, May 2013 The atelier in Kaunas took advantage of the need by the local council to approach new solutions to obtain the necessary resources for the preservation of the fortified system around the city. The atelier clearly addressed the opportunities coming from different sources, not merely financial, for the preservation and maintenance of a site, taking advantage of the experiences of partners along the years, as well as of the new waves coming from the net: the case study adopted for such investigation was the Kaunas fortified system and in particular Fort 6, the main object of redevelopment of the fortified system of the city, Fort 7 and Fort 9, already redeveloped. The first example of financing systems was represented by Fort 9, former prison and concentration camp, a place of extremely delicate memory for which the spectrum of redevelopment possibilities was reduced by nature. In 1958 the Fort became a museum, to be in 1984 the occupation Museum telling about the second World War and the extermination, almost entirely financed ( 3 /4) by the public sector, Ministry of Culture. The examples served to introduced the PPP, Public Private Partnership Co-financing guided by the public sector for merely public interests and uses. The experiences of Kaunas municipality and the Lithuanian National authorities that followed showed the importance to properly plan and maximize the public funding by integrating actions also in different fields (ex. Combining sport, culture and infrastructure needs). The same approach was shown in the case of Plokstine cold War Museum, an essay of establishment of ecological education center, youth camps, training centers, sport facilities, etc. From these example it was underlined as specific destinations (cultural-memorial) in specific cultural and socio economic conditions (in a small country in the process of defining its cultural identity with dolorous events during the wars) public funding could be the most appropriate and the most easy to sustain. The case of Arras citadelle, on the opposite, it was shown how the public sector should foresee the involvement of the private sector since the beginning of the preservation process, by establishing appropriate funding mechanisms where the private invest on restoration and the public on infrastructures and facilities, also with the involvement of citizens. In this case, financing is given by a joint effort of all the interested stakeholders in the site, both working for public utility and benefit and for private profit. Support can also come from the EU programming, as explained by the Lead Partner, that insisted on the need to establish a strong group of partners interested in the regeneration of modern fortifications to engage the EU institutions to adopt new tools. The ATFORT project, with its exchange of experiences, permitted the creation of a common 28.

29 platform with long term perspectives of collaboration: such collaboration should be the principle of shared support and lobbying at European and International level. In this case the political endorsement of a project is also a guaranty of implementation, as well as possible serve to other available resources (including finances). The financial sustainability of a project on architecture and landscape is also based on good programming. In case of modern fortifications, it is extremely important to properly quantify the conservation costs, the maintenance costs and the running costs aware of the volumetric extension of buildings and their infrastructural conditions, including the forecast of the consequences in the change of their original destination. The atelier on conservation and restoration taught partners that approaches could vary according to architectural, socio-cultural, economic conditions of the site, but investments have to be properly chosen considering the difficult reuse of these sites. In this light, Lead Partner presented a possible multicriteria methodology to evaluate costs and expenditures prior the intervention for a better decision making analysis, a criterion based on the location, the object, its typology, the quality and extension, the ambition (vision for it) the possible destination and the effective use. Such parameters are essential to search for and optimize resources, financially and not. Among the most common although unplanned solutions for modern fortification financing it should be counted the volunteer work. Cases as the Trust in UK could be very fruitful all over Europe collecting the interests and the desire to contribute of many passionate in architectural preservation and War history that already collaborate to disseminate knowledge of places and events. Voluntarism, although within structured forms, can highly contribute to infinite activities in a heritage site, ranging from daily maintenance to the run of promotional activities linked with events and cultural initiatives. The final workshop highlighted important ideas for the reuse in different forms of modern fortifications, in particular: need for the preparation of master-plans, to define priorities of investments and see who can contribute and in which part; Try to assess the local context and make of the fortification an object integrated into its context in terms of needs and offers; estimation of the necessary resources in terms of costs, financial flows, voluntary contributions; the communication with local population could enhance promotional/recovery activities; planning the use of the site in the short, medium and long term, calibrating investments according to the different periods; 29.

30 improving the training, also by organizing on-site activities, taking so advantage of the interest to learn of students and future professionals; remembering that modern fortification are important heritage assets that could highly contribute to the regional and local marketing; being innovative and brave, combining if necessary new with the old, the private with the public; remembering that resources to regenerate a place are not only financial; fostering the collaboration at local, regional, national and international level. 30.

31 2.6 Vegetation, landscaping and spatial planning Besançon, June 2013 The atelier held in Besançon was meant to address 3 important issues in archaeological heritage management that heavily affect and influence the redevelopment of modern abandoned fortification, namely the growing vegetation, the mutation of the original landscape and the consequent approaches on planning. The integration reports and the preparatory meetings of ATFORT highlighted these topics as. Vegetation and landscaping One of the main challenges for modern fortification after long decades of abandonment is given by the growth of nature all over sites. Trees, bushes, waters are present in every part of the structure, creating conditions for new ecosystems attracting different kind of animals and insects, among which bats. The presence of such vegetation immediately arises the crash among naturalists and historians and architects, feeding the traditional questions of the conservation theory. On one side site managers would prefer to have the whole structure cleaned and renewed (or at least not endangered by the roots), on the other side local associations would love to admire the romantic superiority of nature taking over human creations. To face such contrasts, the discussion could only act through scientific achievement targeting the conceptual design of fortifications, as well as the real impact of vegetation on the visual and structural integrity of the buildings, giving immediately an important lesson to the participant: actions should be decided according to exhaustive scientific evidences and not only on subjective visions. It must be also underlined that the perception of the importance of green areas is quite different from country to country, as well as far or close urban areas, so influencing the interest on the preservation of the vegetation versus architectural features. The presentations, based on historic documents and case studies from Spandau, the Vauban network Suomenlinna and Netherlands pointed out no specific approaches, but the importance to act according to a clear documentation and a vision. Vegetation was always part of fortifications, both to feed soldiers and to hide structures, but its combination modified according to the fortification typology and the evolution of battles (early modern fortifications were imagined to have empty field in front of them to anticipate the venue of enemies, while later modern fortification were obliged to hide as much as possible in the landscape not to be an easy target for guns), thus giving the overall concept that there should be vegetation in the site, but without subjective preconceptions. Giving the contemporary needs in the reuse of a fortification: 31.

32 trees and bushes are often needed to create better living conditions in the site (as shadow in summer time), but they should not endanger the safe architectural structures; woods around the fortification cannot be completely cut down but optic cones to permit specific sight-seeing can be imagined; plantation and combinations of plants inside the fortification (also to de-pollute the site) are compatible with the factual history of fortresses; if the visual integrity cannot be pursued, structural integrity should be considered as a necessity, thus considering the sacrifice of some vegetation. However, any effort to reach a good compromise in favor of the original profile of the fortification should be made. Maintenance of the fortification is essential. It can be achieved in different forms (professional gardeners, volunteers, soldiers, animals, etc.) and it can guarantee the right balance between anthropic and natural space; The topic of landscaping was cut crossing all discussions on conservation and management of heritage site taking the notion of landscape both as described by the European Landscape Convention, that is subjective perception of individuals, and as usually imagined by people, that is panorama. From these notions the atelier, recalling the discussions in site visiting of all the other ateliers, highlighted: The redevelopment of a fortress should consider the original layout of structures and surrounding environment; The original panorama from far has to be somehow showed if partly vanished during the centuries, ex. by opening loops or optic cones in the vegetation; Modern design interventions could give value to the sites, reinterpreting (if compatible with historic events) them according to the contemporary needs; For sustainability goals, internal soils could be regenerated by the blend of different vegatal species that also reduce the maintenance costs (ex. Reducing the need of moving the grass); Fortresses could be sometimes considered as archaeological sites, thus concentrating more on the landscaping than on restoration and reuse, adopting the approach of the English garden; Improving the accessibility could contribute to a better perception of the landscape and consequently to the interpretation of the site. Spatial planning Landscaping is strictly related with planning. The actions of planning permit a preserved, redeveloped site to be enjoyed fully, but not only the fortress is at stake. In this regard, with the contribution of experts in the ateliers and 32.

33 the experience of partners, it can be resumed that spatial planning is essential for the following reasons: Assuring an integrated development of an area which includes the fortress/fortification. Integration regards the right mix of functions in the area to match residents needs, the proper balance in architectural and urban terms, the combination of finances from different sources to maximize results; Improving the accessibility to and within the site, targeting its use by the local population prior than by visitors. The accessibility to the site should be intended as physical and visual, permitting its interpretation from different perspectives; Creating conditions for the entire surrounding area to be in line with the contemporary needs of urban and peri-urban places, thus imagining a multifunctional destination with interconnected services able to cover most needs; Determining a role for the fortification in an area, thus avoiding it to be absorbed, distorted, changed by future plans based on non-heritage valorization oriented policies. Spatial has been for years the basic tool for territorial management, until the concepts of integration, management and governance entered into stake. The atelier showed that fortresses redevelopment can be based on traditional spatial planning, but it must be part of a broader approach. A very good example was given by the case study of the citadel of Besançon and its relationship with the remaining central part of the town. The project of the lift to connect vertically the citadel with the main street made partners discuss on the importance to reflect on different solution, maybe less impacting, favoring the daily use of citizens, the integration with the new development priorities of the city and the need to attract more people in the site: the case of the citadelle of Besançon showed how being central is not enough and spatial planning combined with good integrated policies could be an appropriate solution. 33.

34 2.7 Communication and marketing, branding Spandau, Berlin, August 2013 Discussing about marketing, communication, branding, was one of the must of the Atfort project, to give value and capitalize the experiences of so many partners through the years. On one side the atfort partners were daily practicing marketing, on the other side its full mechanisms were partially unknown in there theoretical conception. The main question behind this meeting was: how to raise money from a fortification? The meeting gave much more than this. Cultural sites are getting more and more attention by visitors and users, enlarging the basin of cultural tourism once simply considered a niche. In a larger market, modern fortification may find a potential interest by normal cultural tourists and visitors (not merely passionate of war architecture and history) by creating appropriate services. Fortifications are places not only sites, where many values and different significances can be rediscovered and created. Marketing is not only about selling, is not only about communicating, is not only about branding, but is the proper formula to get the interest of less interested individuals. The discipline, as sowed during the atelier, speaks about the marketing mix: The four P Product, Price, Place and Promotion Developed in the year, especially in the cultural sphere into a consumer oriented policy, called the alternate marketing mix: The four C Costumer, Cost, Convenience, and Communication. From the results of the previous ateliers (for example on governance, accessibility and restoration) and in a perspective of commons, the distinction between 4P and 4C is essential, because it clears up the table from unsuitable development policies based on international market attraction. As we have noticed, fortifications are very much location dependent, not only for logistic reasons but also for socio-cultural and historic facts. Their development, based on a marketing strategy, should not prescind from a keen analysis of the place there are located and how it generated in the last 2 centuries. The stress in the atelier was given to the emerging technologies, the absent visitors (potential consumers) and the opportunities with new alliances with the local economies, for examples through storytelling, festivals, etc. In this light, the Spandau citadel demonstrated to be the optimal case study, considering the recent events and project developed. It hosted: Concerts of all kind of music (though raising issues on the carrying capacity of the site and the authenticity atmosphere); Festivals and public viewings thanks to the wide internal courtyard; Expositions 34.

35 And is presently developing a completely new concept of archaeological museum based on technology and sustainability. The approach used attracted to the site all potential cultural users, although by means of less cultural actions. In a larger scale, as showed by Antwerp through the fortified system of the city, the main guiding idea is to plan an overall concept by which fortresses of the system are connected and destined to different purposes (sport, culture, nature, youth activities, etc.), with the aim to attract as many people as possible to get aware of their existence and values. The New Dutch Waterline has a similar approach according to which forts are integrated in functions and destinations (leisure, culture, public and private),with clear objectives at local level in getting partnerships, favoring bottom-up initiatives and delivering concrete short term results easily understandable by the population. In all cases communication strategies are clearly designed and clearly identifiable and all actions relates to it. The lesson from the ATFORT partners came already from the Vauban network that, depending on the inscription on the World Heritage List, established a coordinated image at the base of their communication and cultural supply. The atelier closed with a very interesting workshop to be repeated, involving participants in a shared discussion on the site marketing conditions, addressing through groups the following topics: Visibility and accessibility (part of the communication and consumer components); Tourism advertisement and information; Tourist infrastructure and safety; Development of a tourism concept for an alternative route around the site. Conclusions As main conclusions of the atelier, it must be said that: Marketing is not only about communication tools, but about redeveloping an idea to attract potential users and keep the present ones; Authenticity in the quality of the marketing strategy plays an important and discriminant role, thus restoration is fundamental; Modern fortifications and fortified systems should try to offer an integrated supply in terms of facilities, locations and variety in time and space; The consensus of the local population and the contribution of bottom-up initiatives should be favored in marketing this kind of resources; Think and act as a person not interested in fortifications, but preserve the respect for them and their past. 35.

36 36.

37 2.8 Alternative labour force Medway, September 2013 The experience teaches that the first ones entering in abandoned modern fortifications or telling about them are passionates. Still today, the literature on the defense techniques in modern fortification is extensive, but scarcely studied in specialized faculties of architecture, planning, design, conservation, thus leaving the knowledge to individuals with motivations on history: the atelier clearly stressed on the fact that this is a resource and this kind of motivations have to be properly investigated for the characteristics of modern fortifications. Passionates can contribute in different forms, by giving direct knowledge, investing in research, making direct maintenance works, coordinating on site activities, promoting thematic initiatives and events, etc. Medway and the onsite activities carried out at fort Amherst by the local trust are exceptional in this case. Admirable is the English tradition of participating in such activities for cultural rescue, that display a generalized attention to heritage and local identity. The activities in Medway range from the guided tours for visitors, to the re-enactment, to the physical intervention on the site by providing own time and expertise. The concept of common good (ruled by the users) is noticeably rooted. Another outstanding contribution to the preservation of heritage sites, in particular in fortresses, comes from By understanding the historic environment people value it From enjoying the historic environment comes a thrist to understand achieve excellence openness and efficiency in all we do by valuing it they will want to care for it by caring for it they will help people enjoy it 37.

38 volunteers in search of an experience in collaborating and contributing to the preservation of a local heritage, a local identity. In this group we can include all kind of specialized and unspecialized works, as well as all ages, from the youngest to the eldest. Activities are promoting the site, moving the grass, organizing feasts and celebration with connected services, maintaining the structures and the finishings, gardening, etc. Such experiences have been carried out in most ATFORT sites, from Kaunas to Venice, from Holland to Malta, but being common of many fortifications in Europe. These kind of voluntary activities though necessitate an overall management to coordinate actions, avoiding overlapping and guaranteeing the quality of interventions: so they have to be organize and they have to be assigned a role. These volunteers do not expect anything in return, but forms of compensation or reward packages would be warmly advised and could facilitate a continuity of the project, particularly important in case of gardening works. In many occasions heritage sites are upkept by means of forced volunteers, as end-of-term offenders, prisoners, unemployed, organized through different coordinating and co-financed schemes. In Suomenlinna prisoners in the site spend their summer and spring days in repairing old structures, gardening, paving and constructing new buildings. Such occupation is considered preparatory to the re-insertion into the society with new skills and competences; In the New Dutch Waterline a national and EU project financed activities (mainly tools and materials) to make unemployed and socially excluded individuals (former prisoners, soldiers, drug addicted, handicapped, etc.) work to get new skills and learn the cooperation in a working environment. In Forte Marghera, thanks to a regional unemployed scheme, about 30 paid volunteers contributed to the basic maintenance activities as moving, gardening and re-plastering the buildings; Other solutions of voluntary contributions are given by cooperation agreements, as: With the army or the local firemen or civil protection, as it is constantly made by the city of Besancon, as was made in Malta, Utrecht, Forte Marghera; With craftsmen, artisans and crafts associations, offering appropriate (non-financial) counterparts, as free location, use of the fortress services, etc. With the education institutions as universities, technical school and academies of fine arts. Fortresses, as often underlined in many meetings, as perfect case study and pilot construction sites, where youngsters and skills students can direct- 38.

39 ly learn techniques, technologies and materials, as well as apply their knowledge (including specialized researches). This happened with success in Spandau and Venice. Also these initiatives have to be coordinated and each individual or group as to be assigned a role. While the first 2 groups can act on dangerous areas, the second group has to be guided in safe zones and provided of the necessary, additional insurances. Conclusions There are various forms of alternative labour force in heritage sties, with focus on modern fortifications, ranging from passionate to volunteers, to forced volunteers and specialized/skilled workers; It is important to keep in mind that most of them have to be properly coordinated each has to be assigned a role. Financial resources are required although in minimal stock (insurances, tools, materials, etc.) Students represent a very important resource for assessing the site and up-keeping its parts. Cooperation and mobility schemes have to be further investigated; It is essential to evaluate, when employing huge groups of volunteers, the impact of their work. Works on the green maintenance could be negative because they could open channels for vegetation reinforcement and development, so it is envisaged they carried out on regular agenda. The juridical form of the English Trust could be promoted as it perfectly depict the benefit of the common goods. 39.

40 2.9 Management plans Antwerp October 2013 Governance at territorial level and management at site level: this seems to be a partial conclusion of the ATFORT exchange. The management plans atelier was addressing the importance for fortifications and fortified systems to be properly planned in an integrated way and by the most appropriate management structure on top. But how to decide the management structure? A management plan has to be considered as a tool to coordinate the actions and the interactions on a specific site, combining legislation, maintenance needs and redevelopment scenario with an overall objective: in the ATFORT project such objective has been defined as preservation through development. The organization of such tool cannot prescind from important steps and actions that are often forgotten, as: Indicating the coordinator of the management plan, through a governance process among the relevant stakeholders (owners of the sites); Assessing the site, thus knowing its history, parts, vegetation, materials and structures, state of preservation, state of decay, etc.; Assessing the local conditions for its redevelopment as the juridical framework, the socio-economic context, the actual planning initiatives at different administrative levels, the stakeholders at all level, etc; Planning the conservation framework, quantifying interventions, their costs, the human resources needed, the steps and the action plan; Planning the valorization campaign based on a marketing strategy, that is planning the coordination of activities, prioritizing destinations of the buildings, designing the communication campaign, etc. Implementing the management plans and its actions targeting short, medium and long term objectives, identifying the proper management model and the consequent management structure; Monitoring the activities of the actions, modifying them if needed. For an appropriate management, governance is also needed at higher levels, especially to point out the overall objective of the redevelopment of the fortress. Fortification could be mainly public, combining private and public activities, mainly private. This destination has to be defined in advance, with the appropriate assessment and in light of the eventual bottom-up initiatives. The destination determines the management model and the management structure, that could have numerous orders (foundation, trust, Limited liability Company, Local Government Agency, Local Development Agency, Association of Local Governments, etc.). 40.

41 Conclusions Any heritage site need a management plan for the sake of scarce financial resources and its appropriate conservation; Management plans are important tools for fortifications cause they create a framework of actions to be filled (often of missing data); Management as governance needs integration of action and powers. Cooperation of stakeholders is essential; Policies have to be crossed to optimize impacts and reduce the use of resources. 41.

42 2.10 Sustainability Utrecht, November 2013 What a better occasion to test sustainable energy solutions in abandoned fortifications? The atelier in Utrecht, in line with the principle of preservation through development and in view of the infinite needs of fortresses and fortified systems, was targeting the exchange of experiences on innovative and sustainable technologies. In fact fortification are characterized by: Lacking basic infrastructure since their conceptual design (isolated site); Having extensive surfaces and volumes with wide green areas; Being positively exposed to sun, wind and often surrounded by water; Being constructed with simple architectural techniques and often poor materials; Green areas are usually polluted thus asking for soil regeneration; guaranteeing a potential self-sustainability to any fortress. Once implemented these systems have also a very low impact on the financial turnovers of the site managers. Generating energy needs its diffusion inside the building, for which several other technologies have been recently introduced in respect to the integrity of the fabrics. Some sites in Holland and Italy have already experienced these approaches with a discrete success, although the implementation costs are still much higher than traditional technologies. Producing energy is not the only strategy: energy can also be maintained in the building, by using the right insulation techniques on the walls (if compatible and possible) and on the roofs. In many cases, however, fortifications have the right structure to enable a stable temperature and humidity thereby not requiring additional layers. And thus have the main characteristics to be adopted for testing new energy solutions, in particular: Biomass; Photovoltaic and solar panels Geothermal These solutions can be investigated however for their potential impact on the atmosphere and the ground, thereby 42.

43 3. Overall conclusions Much could be said about the ateliers and the positive impact they had on the participants. All ATFORT partners have been experiencing the process of redevelopment of modern fortifications in their area, thus were comfortable at the beginning. At the end of the cycle of 10 ateliers, it can be said that many participants grew by adding doubts to their experience. The amount of theoretical assumptions and practical achievements have suggested so many alternatives that any participants came back to his site richer and a bit more critical on his previous ideas, in the perspective that what was done good could have been improved. In the ateliers some aspects seemed to be constant: The need to speak the same language, with the same terminology in different disciplines. Restoration, governance, marketing, landscaping, accessibility, etc. were not shared concept at the beginning and a theoretical explanation was important for the participants; Assessment is important in all steps of a site redevelopment. A good knowledge of the object and the context are fundamental to undertake any action. Documenting structures, history, vegetation, landscape, stakeholders degree of committment, basin of interest, profile of visitors and users, etc. gives the tools for good decision making Dialogue among community and government and their commitment in the regeneration of a place is determinant for success. Bottom-up initiative and top down policies can easily be of mutual benefit by the commitment should be honest and long lasting. Redevelopment has to be based on appropriate management tools. Masterplans and management plans are strategic document to be finalised before undertaking serious actions. Redevelopment actions should be based on cross-sector and interdisciplinary approaches. There is a serious need of training sites managers through a multidisciplinary perspective. All topics of the ateliers were important and all of them impact any modern fortification. Training should be based on data acquisition, exchange of experiences, frontal academic lectures on the principles of conservation, economics, sociology of culture, history of architecture, marketing and tourism. 43.

44 4. Appendix 1- Index of the Atfort documents 44. Contributions in the Ateliers Atelier Theme Presentations Presenter Conclusions of SAR's, introduction of the atelier's themes Toon van der Ouderaa Dr. Governance models theme introduction Karen Gysen Fortengordels rond Antwerpen Karen Gysen Citadel Spandau Andrea Theissen Dr. Conservation philosophy Couvre Porte Medway Alice Brockway Historical context of Suomenlinna Vilhelm Helander Suomenlinna/Helsinki, Finland Komárom, Hungary Venice, Italy &Nova Gorcia, Slovenia Conservation and restoration Accessibility & safety Governance models UNESCO World Heritage Multifunci tonal reuse of fortified heritage Built heritage in Kaunas and its development Fort Liezele 2012 Conservation and restoration _NDW History of theory Banquet facilities Suomenlinna Vauban Briancon safeguarding barracks Vauban organization_restoration The organization of Suomenlinna Introduction to restoration and conservation philosophy NDW Accessibility and safety Accessibility in Suomenlinna Arras Accessibility and safety Kent Accessibility MarcoPoloSystem Access Malta Fort Breendonk Suomenlinna new organization Kent governance University of Nova Gorica Good governance Malta Fort Monostor and its governance Fort IV. Governance Fortengordels NDW and it governance Vauban governance Suomenlinna and the World Heritage How to present O.U.V ATFORT_UNESCO_Malta Unesco Medway UNESCO NDW Vauban WH World Heritage Convention The Recovery Plan of Forte Marghera. Transformability evaluation of the buildings. Venice and Forte Marghera as crossroad of a network of European institutions "The interdisciplinary approach for the establishment and management of the International Centre. Saulius Rimas Marc van Riet Gerco Meijer Marco Acri Suvi Jantti Marieke Steenbergen Marieke Steenbergen Heikki Lahdenmäki Tuija Lind Menno Smit Petteri Takkula Tomas Floch Paul Cuming Daniele Sferra Malcolm Borg Dr. Olivier van der Bildt Heikki Lahdenmäki Paul Cuming Marco Acri Malcolm Borg Dr. Erika Farkas Ann Thomas Karen Gysen Peter Ros Marieke Steenbergen Heikki Lahdenmäki Tamás Fejérdy Dr. Malcolm Borg Dr. Joanne Cable Rob Zakee Marieke Steenbergen Jukka Jokilehto dr. prof. Arch. Francesco Trovó Daniele Sferra Marco Acri

45 Atelier Theme Presentations Presenter New Dutch Waterline Peter Ros Paola, Malta Kaunas, Lithuania Besançon, France Multifunctonal adaptive reuse of fortified and military heritage Financing and Fundraising Vegetation and spatial planning Geofort Harbour Fortificaton regeneration Din L-Art Helwa - National Trust Malta Medway UK Restoration & Reuse Redundant fortifications Fort Amherst and Inner lines Citadel of Arras Questions today valorizaton of military relicts Integration and Reuse of militry structures in the city of Antwerp Naarden a fortified city Unveiled- Berlin and its monuments Presentation on funding strategy for the citadel of Arras and on the ways of attracting private investors 9th Fort Kaunas The experience of creating Brest fortress area development concept with the involvement of private investment Bunker Q method and workshop on a self made calculation method to measure maintenance on fortresses Financing of Fort Monostor Funding and financing possibilities for Kaunas Fortress The use of different EU programs for New Dutch Waterlinie and chances for the new period Local economic impacts of national park visitation as an example of the benefits of the parks Financing and funding of the Kent fortification Grass, Lawn, Tree and fortification. History and management Vauban s fortifications in Besançon. Landscaping and vegetation maintenance ADDSEA Soil pollution and archaeological values in contradiction - case Suomenlinna Deconsecration: preservation through development Green on and around the Spandau Citadel Fortifications, vegetation and planning: Le style de l intelligence The vertical connexion: planning for transit in fortifications Qualitative ambitions for spatial planning City and fortifications: from heritage to urban planning Wllemijn Simon van Leeuwens Malcolm Borg Dr. Maria-Grazia Cassar Ben Found Martin Rogers and Ben Found Patrice Josep Piet Lombaerde dr. Prof. Karen Minsaer Bas Kreuger Andrea Theissen Dr., Carmen Mann, Susan Schröter Patrice Josep Jüraté Zakaité Inna Prilezhayeva Gerco Meijer Erika Farkas Vygintas Grinis Peter Ros Nina Roikonnen Paul Cuming Philippe Bragard Fabienne Bénard Nadja Khodja Heikki Lahdenmäki and Iina Johansson Eric de Lyon Andrea Theissen Dr. Philip Prost Malcolm Borg Dr. Gert Middelkoop Clementine Thierry, PhD 45.

46 Atelier Theme Presentations Presenter Fortresses: Creating a Market in a Cultural Perspective Andrea Bonifacio Marketing and PR acitvities in Fort Monostor Erika Farkas & Zita Kalmár Welcome_Spandau Andrea Theissen Dr. Communication and promotion of a network of Marie Mongin, Marie-Pierre fortifications as a serial WH-property Papazian The art of attract tourists. Making Money on heritage Jos Quijpers Spandau's visitor's survey Andrea Theissen Dr. First experiences with founding a network of entrepreneurs Juke van Niekerk Does heritage matters? Michele Trimarchi PhD. Museum concepts of Spandau Per Pedersen Marketing Citadel: Concept and Strategy Michael Gottschling "Gotisches Haus" The information bank Spandau Sven-Uwe Dettmann Recapture the forts Bert Hellemans, Luc Olyslager, Karen Gysen Innovative technologies and heritage tourism Janina Janik PhD. Alternative Labour forces at Fort Vechten Martin Vastenhout Current and potential Voluntary activities in teh Defense system of Venice Daniele Sferra Fortifications as Working places Frank Riesbeck Dr. Historical overview of Fort Amherst Keith Gulvin Kaunas - the role of volunteers Irena Popierene Paola Social inclusion: local employment and skills development Malcolm Borg Dr. English Heritage: Education volunteering and top ten tips Francesca Lashmar Jeroen Bootsma, Eric Youth projects at Stichting Herstelling and Reynaerde Creemers, Richard Trenning and Martin Vastenhout Suomenlinna: Site maintenance and end-of-term offenders Anu Ahoniemi The role of (young) offenders, the long-term unemployed, the Royal Engineers, Friends and Volunteers Keith Gulvin Komarom: volunteering or social working Erika Farkas Audiovisual Multimedia Exhibition produced by volunteers Janina Janik PhD. Zitadelle Spandau Fabian Albert Benefits of a bottom-up approach_fort Vechten Martin Vastenhout Fort Amherst, turning the vision into a viable plan, the constaints&meeting partner expectations Keith Gulvin From a shared vision to implementation. The management Marieke Steenbergen& of Fort Dauphin Claire-Marie Collin Preparing a Management Plan - The Case of Suomenlinna Petteri Takkula Concept & business plan Fort 4 Willem de Laat Management and regional policy Antwerp Luk Lemmens Masterplan and management plan, the examples of Jukka Jokilehto dr. Baku and Bam prof. Masterplan Fort Lilo David Verhoestraete Planning heritage tourism Jois Cuijpers Range of present and future management plan scenarios for Forte Marghera Daniele Sferra Medway, UK Antwerp, Belgium Antwerp, Belgium 46. Alternative labour forces Management Plans Management Plans

47 Atelier Theme Presentations Presenter Fort Altena Carla Breuer The challenge of converting a utility building into a sustainable venue for conferences, weddings and Joris Hoogstede parties. Adopting green solutions for the re-use of fortified sites. Marco Acri Fitting out an historical 3D show in the chapel of the Besançon citadel: mission impossible? Marieke Steenbergen Using the New Dutch Waterline for sustainable watermanagement Sanders Boom Sustainable preservation of cultural heritage the green museum debate Stefan Röhrs The interaction between building, adaptive re-use, climate control and the behaviour of the users. Antonin van de Bree Sustainability of Dutch fortresses in the USA Craig Lukezic Fort Csillag using renewable energy? Erika Farkas Sustainable transformation of fortresses Gerco Meijer Eco-tourism ideas and initiatives at the fortifications of Nysa Janina Janik PhD. Passive and active solutions for conservation and energy efficient retrofit Alexandra Troi Presentation from the Climate-KIC project Lodewijk le Grand Petteri Takkula, Jenni Sustainable development of Suomenlinna Sundberg and Tiina Virolainen Serial nominations and extensions Christopher Young WHS Cornwall and West Devon Debora Boden OUV Jukka Jokilehto dr. prof. The New Dutch Waterline Rob Zakee Utrecht, The Netherlands Sustainability UNESCO World Heritage All pictures in this document are under the copyright rules. Both were made by the partner s representatives, or their experts during the meetings. Unathorized use is prohibited! For further informations visit: or contact us. "The Interregional Cooperation Programme INTERREG IVC, financed by the European Union s Regional Development Fund, helps Regions of Europe work together to share experience and good practice in the areas of innovation, the knowledge economy, the environment and risk prevention. EUR 302 million is available for project funding but, more than that, a wealth of knowledge and potential solutions are also on hand for regional policy-makers." 47.

48