Choosing which aspects of a city's heritage to develop may be determined by the extent and traces of remains from its past. Some historical cities have concentrated on conserving the most significant and easily identifiable traces of a specific period in their history.

In most cases, however, the traces of the past are overlapping, intermingled and intertwined to such an extent that uninformed observers are hard put to identify the different historical periods without structured information. In that case, what are the development options?

Some cities prefer to preserve buildings and facilities from different periods, including the recent past; others choose to reconstruct old buildings based on the remains of a given period.

Whatever the choice, there are certain to be reactions:

• reactions against the evocation or elimination of a given historical period or event (Is there not a risk, in fact, of trivializing heritage and history, in trying to minimize past conflicts through inoffensive treatment in an effort to avoid offending anyone?);
  
  
• reactions by owners and occupants of buildings with great heritage and property value, on sites with significant archaeological potential (How can we reconcile the economic development imperatives of downtowns with the protection and development of archaeological remains?);
  
  
• aesthetic reactions, particularly to contemporary insertions (Is there not a danger of "museumizing" historic districts by insisting on keeping them separate from the surrounding modern city or, at the other extreme, of exacerbating their exceptional, "touristy" character by concentrating even more modern facilities there than in more contemporary districts?).

When it comes to development, we feel that there is no right or wrong answer, only choices, which bring with them a host of consequences, some positive and others less so. The workshop will bring together representatives of cities that have made different choices.

Involving citizens in heritage protection assumes that they are aware of the historical importance of the heritage in question. To achieve this, the city must organize and present the fruit of historical and archaeological research in an interesting, accessible way. Today, people often turn to the Web to improve their knowledge and better understand the importance of the past for present-day cities. This interactive tool also allows them to conduct their own research and test their own hypotheses.

Residents and merchants develop a sense of ownership of their historic district, and are readily mobilized to make themselves heard. But their interests often diverge when it comes to plans for developing their neighbourhood and the results of development initiatives. Merchants are more interested in short-term benefits, while residents are concerned with more long-term repercussions. Heavy tourist traffic in the evening and at night, congested streets, and "specialization" and high prices in stores aimed at the tourist trade are only some of the points of disagreement. Residents' point of view is all the more important since, according to many observers, they are the ones who bring life to the streets in historic districts and make them more than just an interesting background.

As for the souvenir shops that infest all historic districts around the world, the best way of minimizing their impact is to maintain a variety of urban functions, by truly integrating these historic areas into the modern city.

Finally, heritage lobby groups, architecture and urban planning professionals and civil society in general, depending on the national or international significance of certain sites, demand a voice in any decisions by public authorities. Their involvement can take various forms, ranging from informal consultation to the creation of public bodies with powers delegated by the municipality.

The desire of all these groups to be involved in preserving and developing the built heritage must be considered. But it is the elected officials who must shoulder the ultimate responsibility for their decisions, to make the choices that they feel best correspond to the public good, and to account for their decisions to the public. Some member cities will speak on the approach they have chosen to ensure that each stakeholder has a voice.

Developing a city's built heritage necessarily calls for an injection of public funds, and such projects naturally have to compete with a range of other needs. Accordingly, proponents seek to make the public investment in renewing historic districts a profitable one.

In the short term, this profitability lies in the contribution the historic district will make to tourism development, generating jobs and attracting tourist dollars. But these more immediate and tangible economic benefits are increasingly supplanting the appeal to long-term cultural benefits and collective pride that used to be cited as reasons for conserving a city's heritage.

This raises two questions:

• Are there any other reasons, apart from wishing to draw more tourists, sufficient to justify the political decisions and public investment necessary to preserve and renew historic districts?
  
  
• Does heritage investment to gain short-term returns from tourism have negative effects on the long-term preservation of historic neighbourhoods (overuse, imbalance in urban functions, driving out residents, purchase of homes by foreigners to be used for a few days a year, uncontrollable escalation in the price of real estate, etc.)?

If the development of historic districts is to be an investment not only in tourism, but also in urban and social life, public authorities should encourage a variety of urban functions:

• protecting housing by controlling gentrification and irritants;
  
  
• preserving a diversity of stores and businesses;
  
  
• encouraging other functions: business, creation, public administration, services, etc.

In this regard, does the scarcity of public funds, sometimes used as an excuse for limited public intervention in historic quarters, justify public- and private-sector partnerships, especially in the renewal and conversion of historic buildings for contemporary purposes, since such initiatives could contribute to the functional diversity and integration of historic districts?

In this workshop, a number of member cities will explain some of the solutions they have adopted.

June 12, 2003