ABSTRACT
Since the end of the Second World War, the architectural and planning
culture has been showing a fluctuating attention to the theme of
historical centres and their enhancement. First of all this uneven
progress explains the difficulty to reach a homogeneous definition and
this is still lacking. During a long phase of this period, the historical
parts of the town were considered as objects to be preserved in an
integral way, as urban monuments. This is mostly due to the high
symbolic value of these settlements, that represent fundamental
landmarks. Identity building and empowerment of local communities
are indispensable conditions for any development programme,
especially in the case of centres or other historic environments at risk
of abandonment.
The progressive evolution of this concept brings awareness of the
impossibility of separating – either in analytical or in planning terms
­ historical centres from their urban and territorial contexts, which
are linked by mutual, deep relationships.
This article attempts to retrace the steps signaled by the publication

IJPP ­ Italian Journal of Planning Practice 73Vol. I, issue 1 ­ 2011

Roberta Lazzarotti
Research Assistant
Via Flaminia, 72 ­ 00196 ­ Rome, Italy ­ Rob.lazzaro@fastwebnet.it
Dipartimento Design, Tecnologia dell’Architettura, Territorio e Ambiente, Sapienza ­ Università di Roma

Historical centres: changing definitions

ISSN: 2239­267X



Lazzarotti ­ Historical centres: changing definitions

IJPP ­ Italian Journal of Planning Practice 74Vol. I, issue 1 ­ 2011

INTRODUCTION
The objective of this article is to identify the main concepts emerging from
the long scientific and cultural debate around the definition of a historical
centre, especially in Europe, after the Second World War.
Despite the presumable immobility of the subject matter, the idea of a
historical centre has evolved a lot in the opinions of experts and academics,
following a trend of a progressive widening of the field of interest.
The different definitions, processed by experts and academics in
international contexts, are evidence of the efforts made to delimit this field;
documents produced during these confrontations have represented, for long
periods, important landmarks for reflection and action, in particular for
planning and urban renewal.
The purpose of this article therefore is to re­build the steps of a conceptual
route, referring to the definitions produced at the dates of the selected
events, and so to arrive at an identification of the essential terms for a
contemporary definition of historical centre.
First of all it is necessary to suggest that the route described will not be a
linear one, essentially for two reasons:

of international documents and conventions, from the Charter of
Gubbio (1960) to the Charter of Krakow and the European
Landscape Convention (2000); they obviously represent particular
points of view, not exhaustive of the richness of the positions in the
debate, but extremely significant in terms of diffusion and consensus.

1. The historical centres theme is situated, by its nature, between town
planning and heritage protection. Each area claims autonomous
spaces for theoretical elaboration and definition of objectives and
intervention methodologies. But they move from different points of
view, because the subject of observation is different. Planners look at
historical settlements as a component of territory, and their objectives
are balanced development and the effectiveness of functional



Lazzarotti ­ Historical centres: changing definitions

IJPP ­ Italian Journal of Planning Practice 75Vol. I, issue 1 ­ 2011

These two kinds of values represent, paradoxically, the same rationale for
very different approaches to the restoration of historical heritage: the need to
preserve it, even “extracting” it from people’s use in the primary interest of
conservation; and the necessity to re­interpret it in a design sense, even
locating new functions and identity, to ensure the maintenance of a symbolic
and an urban role (in the worst cases, even trying to ensure the survival of
the settlement). Protection and transformation are opposite and
irreconcilable positions.
From these premises, it is possible to argue that the ambivalences of the
theme can be appreciated during the last fifty years, through the emergence
of contrasting statements, and which continue to represent an obstacle for
the identification of criteria and guidelines for policies to enhance historical
centres. The simplest example of this problem is the conflict between the
conservationist’s approach to management of historical buildings, that gives
priority to the preservation of integrity, and the developer’s approach, that
pays more attention to the functional question, mainly to find an answer to
the great problem of the abandonment of small historical towns and villages.
Therefore there is a clear importance of research into common key concepts
of historical centres, but this research is neither simple nor univocal. Even if
the European Union stated that balance between regions was a primary
development goal, there is still a strong cultural resistance – especially in

relationships with the other components (new settlements, services,
green areas, infrastructures, production areas, etc.). Heritage
protectors are more focused on the physical and cultural values of the
asset, and their objectives are conservation and safeguarding for future
generations. The contents of the documents produced by the
organizations associated with the two areas reflect these different
approaches.

2. Two different kinds of values are related to the safeguarding of
historical towns: the physical value, from which aesthetic and
contemplative meaning derives; and the testimonial value, which
assumes a documentary and a symbolic role for communities, due to
the conservation of the memory and identity of the sites.



Lazzarotti ­ Historical centres: changing definitions

IJPP ­ Italian Journal of Planning Practice 76Vol. I, issue 1 ­ 2011

backward areas – to looking at historical settlements as an economic and
social resource, as well as a cultural one.
The story of the theoretical elaboration around these concepts will be
discussed using the documents and publications produced between 1960 and
the present at an international level. The documents selected (Declarations,
Charters and legal texts) are linked by their efforts to explain and synthesize
positions and are strongly representative of policy guidance; hence they
mark crucial steps of the debate, express principles of action, and take part
in agenda formulation. Finally, these documents also represent balances of
reflections on activities and of projections of future opportunities and needs.
Synthesising the contents of the documents, it is possible to find an
increasing effort:

to enlarge the whole of the categories of cultural value which are to be
protected;

• to define, in a wider way, the idea of a historical centre, more
integrated with its territorial context.

•

The most interesting steps in the evolution of the debate, as can be inferred
from the reading of these documents, can be summarised in three transitions:

from a position of protection of isolated monuments to an increasing
interest for the territorial context, that can integrate and enhance
identity and value;

•

•

• from an attention to the physical dimension of interventions to the
social ones, especially in terms of care for the maintenance of local
community and economic activities in historical sites.

from a conception of heritage as an object for survey and passive
observation to a trust in its capability to generate new processes for
the development of cultural identity;

This article does not propose a chronicle of ongoing historical heritage
protection but it attempts to define, through the identification of some key
concepts, the possibility of a definition which may be always dynamic. The
final part will present a critical review of a recent innovation in the Italian
normative system of heritage protection, as introduced by the so­called



Lazzarotti ­ Historical centres: changing definitions

IJPP ­ Italian Journal of Planning Practice 77Vol. I, issue 1 ­ 2011

“Urbani Code” in 2004.
1. DOCUMENTS
As is well known, protectionist culture developed from the end of the World
Wars, above all for the need to defend historical heritage first from war
events and then from the threats from an urgent need for reconstruction. In
Italy, conventionally, the first event in which the historical centres theme
was brought to the attention of the urban studies debate was the first
Charter of Gubbio (1960), produced in Italy at the end of a congress
treating with “Safeguarding and rehabilitation of the historical and artistic
centres”. At the end of the congress, the Charter was signed and the National
Association of Historical­Artistic Centres (ANCSA) was founded. The
Congress did not directly address the subject of identification and definition
of historical centres (Dainotto, 2003). Mostly, the Charter states priorities,
specifically concerning the need to institute heritage censuses and to define
intervention categories; a new attention is also expressed regarding social
structure and a concern for the maintenance of communities and of
economic activities within the settlements.
In 1964 in Venice, in the 2° Congress of Architects and Monuments
Technicians, in which the ICOMOS1 organisation was created, a first
relevant step is made towards the protection of historic settings, with the
formulation of the so­called Charter of Venice.
The concept of a historic monument embraces not only the single
architectural work but also the urban or rural setting in which is found the
evidence of a particular civilization, a significant development or an historic
event. (art. 1)
Forward (art. 6): The conservation of a monument implies preserving a
setting which is not out of scale.
This is an important enlargement of the scope of analysis and action to
extend protection to the setting.

International Council of Monuments and Sites1



Lazzarotti ­ Historical centres: changing definitions

IJPP ­ Italian Journal of Planning Practice 78Vol. I, issue 1 ­ 2011

At the national level the contribution of the Franceschini Committee
(1967) brings very interesting reflections, even if it failed in its primary goal
of setting out a new law for protection and enhancement of historical,
archeological and artistic heritage. The Committee’s work on the definition
of cultural and environmental heritage also included urban and non­urban
structures that present a particular asset for their civilization values, which
must be conserved for the enjoyment of the community.
In practical terms, it resolved that an entire settlement, with clearly defined
boundaries, could be included in the category of monuments, and so have
the same status of objects submitted for special protection. Historical
centres, regulated by Italian laws since 1939, and, later, the sites identified
by the so­called Galasso law, were to become areas with a “special”
territorial status.
Also the idea that the purpose of conservation is for the enjoyment of the
community, suggests a democratic and universal right to enjoy the common
heritage, and this seems to put into the background the importance of the
ordinary functional role of the historic buildings (residential, cultural,
economic).
The succeeding article explicitly refers to historical centres, defined as
urban structures that constitute a cultural unit or the original and authentic
parts of settlements, and attest the character of a living urban culture; it
asserts the need to have dedicated, specific planning and financial tools.
These are the peak years of planning and analysis methodologies, linked to
the concept of zoning, and with theoretical assumptions for classificatory
practices; the law n. 1444/1968 will represent the crucial normative
reference of this approach, influencing all planning activity of 70’s.
Historical centres are, because of their value, “extracted” by urban plans in
order to set them in a particular normative position, but in the most part of
situations it means a non­choice. The effect is a real stop of transformation
and improvement practices, and the consequent progressive degradation and
abandonment of centres.
The definition of the A zone “historical centre” of the law 1444, identifies
areas of urban settlements having historical, artistic character or particular



Lazzarotti ­ Historical centres: changing definitions

IJPP ­ Italian Journal of Planning Practice 79Vol. I, issue 1 ­ 2011

The definition of the A zone “historical centre” of the law 1444, identifies
areas of urban settlements having historical, artistic character or particular
environmental value, or parts of these2. In fact the practice which was most
utilised – the coincidence of the A zone boundary with the town­walls –
ignored the possibilities of relating to the historical setting, expressed in the
definition in the law.
Nevertheless, at the same time, another expression of the need to “look over
the walls” in the identification of the historical value of settlements comes
from the Italian Restoration Charter (1972, Ministry of Education) that,
coming from a different disciplinary field, represents an important
conceptualisation for approaches to conservation.
The most important concept expressed is that the identification of Historical
Centres must consider not only the old urban “centres", in a traditional
sense, but also in a more general way, consideration should be given to all
human settlements which have structures, complete or fragmentary, or even
partially transformed over time.
The second relevant statement concerns the historical character has to be
referred to the value that settlements have as evidence of past civilization
and as records of urban culture, apart from intrinsic artistic, formal or
environmental values.
The statement is relevant from different points of view. Firstly it expresses
an ideal of historical value not strictly linked to the objective quality of the
site, questioning the equivalence between history and value. Implications of
that concept also pave the way to reflections about the question of the
admissable time scale and about the equality between testimonial value and
belonging and the identification value, produced for the community.
Additionally, Restoration Charter confirms the importance of consideration
of the external villages, which is a frequently used form of historical

The explanatory circular of Ministry of Public Works n. 3210/1967 asserts that these2
settlements can be identified as (translation of the author):
a) urban structures in which the majority of blocks contain buildings erected before
1860, even in absence of monuments or buildings having particular artistic value;
b) urban structures enclosed by ancient walls, entirely or partially maintained;
c) urban structures, built after 1860, that constitute examples of special building
practice.



Lazzarotti ­ Historical centres: changing definitions

IJPP ­ Italian Journal of Planning Practice 80Vol. I, issue 1 ­ 2011

urbanization, especially in Italy, and that often represents de facto a unit with
the main nucleus3.
The document refers to particularly valuable situations where the
environmental setting in which historical centres are situated is an intrinsic
factor of the entire quality (for examples the circle of hills around Florence,
the Venetian Lagoon, Roman centuriations in the Padana Valley, Trulli’s
unique area), and so selecting an group of excellent cases. The safeguarding
of the entire area constitutes a key instrument for the enhancement of
historical centres, and it requires an analysis of locality and the role of the
centres.
A new concern is for the impending threat of functional overload of the
historical parts of many towns, particularly of business functions, that need
to be “lightened” as Piccinato suggested. There are also functional pressures
regarding mobility questions, in particular the territorial connections and
relationships between historical sites and modern urban additions, and with
territory in a larger sense; for these themes planning, and specifically
protection norms, is seen as the real solution.
In this view, historical centres have a preeminent role in territorial
organisation, not for only for being a keystone of urban activities, but as a
place to safeguard as the precious and delicate guardian of collective
memory. So the need to avoid alterations becomes clear, even loosing
importance and role of these centres, that historically were the privileged
places of public and civil life.
In the same period, and with the same approach, the question of historical
centres was brought to attention of the international community by the
Unesco Convention concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural
Heritage (Paris, 1972), in which historical centres are considered as “cultural
heritage”, enlarging their significance from only a physical/symbolic
meaning to forming spiritual, cultural, economic and social capital and the
expression of a civilisation. The value of belonging to a community is thus
increased, because safeguarding the historical heritage ensures an essential

In Italian planning practice it’s not rare to find villages coeval to the historical main centre,3
classified as B zones (“Completion” zones) by the local plan, because of greater major
flexibility and hence a greater appeal for owners.



Lazzarotti ­ Historical centres: changing definitions

IJPP ­ Italian Journal of Planning Practice 81Vol. I, issue 1 ­ 2011

setting for balance and cultural development.
The concept is further confirmed in the Declaration of Amsterdam (1975),
from the Congress of the European Architectural Heritage4: architectural
heritage is an irreplaceable expression of the wealth and diversity of
European culture, but it adds that its protection depends largely upon its
integration into the context of people's lives, that seems to allude to an active
dimension of enjoyment. Furthermore, architectural heritage consists not
only of our most important monuments: it also includes the groups of lesser
buildings in our old towns and characteristic villages in their natural or
manmade settings. This establishes that the areas can extend beyond the
town walls and can also include the natural environment as a complementary
factor of the setting, and allowing, in that way, the formulation of the
concept of historical landscape.
This idea seems to be still conditioned by the fear that any external
transformation could corrupt the quality of the historical site, therefore we
can consider it a vision which is still unbalanced towards protection and
preservation of readability of the original aspects of the sites (even if there
are wide controversies between experts about the correct way to establish
what is “original”). The basic belief is that we are responsible for our
heritage and that we must transmit this unaltered to future generations,
otherwise part of man's awareness of his own continuity will be destroyed.
The concept of conservation is however consistently enlarged and enriched
with many important functional connotations. In fact it confirmed the great
educational value of historical buildings, but also that they offer the right
conditions for the development of a wide range of activities. The
abandonment of built heritage is a serious threat, but it is equally important

The Congress of Amsterdam, the crowning event of European architectural heritage Year4
1975, and composed of delegates from all parts of Europe, wholeheartedly welcomes
the Charter promulgated by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which
recognizes that Europe's unique architecture is the common heritage of all her peoples
and which declared the intention of the Member States to work with one another and
with other European governments for its protection. The Charter of European
Architectural Heritage, adopted by the Committee, together with the succeeding
Declaration, has to be considered the "Charter of Integrated Conservation".



Lazzarotti ­ Historical centres: changing definitions

IJPP ­ Italian Journal of Planning Practice 82Vol. I, issue 1 ­ 2011

to pay attention to an inappropriate use of contemporary technologies and an
unbalanced concern for mobility problems. The road to travel is that of
integrated conservation that can be achieved by the application of sensitive
restoration techniques and the correct choice of appropriate functions,
which are necessary also to reverse the departure of the poorer inhabitants,
who need to be involved in rehabilitation processes.
For these reasons, European architects hoped for a better dialogue between
protection and planning experts, even with the conviction that historical
centres belong to field of competence of the former, and that the most
important tool is the cataloging.
Ten years later, the Convention for the Protection of the Architectural
Heritage of Europe. (Granada 1985) basically confirmed this guidance,
inserting in the definition of heritage also rural buildings conspicuous for
their historical, archaeological, artistic, scientific, social or technical
interest which are sufficiently coherent to form topographically definable
units. In the Convention, European States were also committed to
demonstrating the unity of the cultural heritage and the links that exist
between architecture, the arts, popular traditions and ways of life at
European, national and regional levels alike. The value of the heritage is also
recognised as multidimensional, and, consequently, any intervention strategy
has to adopt the same character.
At world level the importance of the safeguarding of historical towns – in
consideration of their role as historical documents, and the values of
traditional urban cultures – is asserted in the ICOMOS Charter of
Conservation of Historic Towns (Washington 1987), that also states the
principle of the involvement of the inhabitants in the interventions.
In 1987 was enacted the Italian Charter of Conservation and Restoration
of artistic and cultural objects, which expresses the point of view of a
precise cultural position, not only in Italy. Historical centres (to which a
specific annex is dedicated) can be defined as a residential settlement whose
meaning is irreplaceable in the history of a cultural area of humanity5.

Translation of the author5



Lazzarotti ­ Historical centres: changing definitions

IJPP ­ Italian Journal of Planning Practice 83Vol. I, issue 1 ­ 2011

Its uniqueness requires a special normative regulation, the lack of which is
noted. The “historical” attribution could not be generalisable, and it is
necessary to evaluate the individual qualities which identify worthy
historical centres; the attention is hence concentrated just on physical
interventions, neglecting immaterial aspects.
Regarding the individual elements which need to be addressed in order to
safeguard the whole centre, consideration must be given, not only to the
built elements, but also to other constituent parts such as external spaces
(streets, squares) and internal features (e.g. courts, gardens, empty spaces,
other relevant structures (walls, doors, rocks), as well as any natural
elements which make up the whole, for examples, natural contours, streams
of water, geomorphological singularities (like Orvieto’s cliff)6.
This statement seems to take a step backwards in respect to what was
affirmed in the Charter of Amsterdam, which talked about environment and
not about single elements.
Therefore the comparison with what experts of urban renewal were
expressing in the second Charter of Gubbio (1990) appears more strident7.
It marks a moment of progress in the disciplinary debate around the theme
and a first weighing up of the experiences of a decade of urban renewal
interventions that is not completely positive: historical towns are still
threatened, first of all by the speediness of transformations, and because
trust in planning begins to waver, but the policies being proposed are seen as
the right answer, especially the territorial network policies.
The most relevant concept introduced in the new Charter is that of historical
territory, global expression of cultural identity and the subject in all its parts
(existing city and periphery, built landscapes, rural land) of an organic
action strategy8. Therefore the concept of the historical centre has emerged
from merely classifying or delimiting needs, and stops being considered as a
“zone” in a conceptual sense; now it lives and has relationships with all
other territorial components.
Further, its value represents an identity resource, as well as a cultural one.

Translation of the author6
XI International Congress ANCSA, Gubbio, 26­27­28 ottobre 19907
Translation of the author8



Lazzarotti ­ Historical centres: changing definitions

IJPP ­ Italian Journal of Planning Practice 84Vol. I, issue 1 ­ 2011

Historical­cultural identity is a guarantee of environmental quality;
conservation has become a need, because it is now seen as having a
recognised value (social, economical, cultural and aesthetic) involving, first
of all, the living community.
On the International scene, the Italian debate is the most advanced about
these themes.
The Charter of Megaride (Naples, 1994), in fact, reasserts many of
Gubbio’s principles and brings them to maturation; memory is regarded as a
quality factor of places; it asks for respect, but also has the capability to re­
interpret and innovate it, giving these places back to being a necessary part
of the new organisation of urban space9.
The Charter of Krakow (2000) was produced after a three years work by
the International Conference on Conservation "Krakow 2000” and of its
final plenary session "Cultural Heritage as the Foundation of the
Development of Civilisation". First of all, it rejects a unifying definition, and
this is surely an interesting innovation: heritage cannot be defined in a fixed
way. It can be only defined in the way in which a particular heritage can be
identified. Then it highlights the lack of flexibility within some protectionist
positions, recognising that heritage values change over time.
Plurality in society implies also a great variability in the ways that ideas of
heritage may be formulated by an entire community. Monuments, as single
elements of heritage, are bearers of values that can change over time, at
different moments of history10.
Implications for the concepts of identification and of the safeguarding of
historical residential heritage are evident: architectural, urban and
landscape heritage are the result of an identification associated with
different historical periods and with variations in socio­cultural settings.
Therefore the identification and recognition of heritage value – which
cannot be entirely objective and measurable – is a process in constant
evolution and change. The analysis of the dynamics of change is an
operation preliminary to intervention, as relevant as historical and

Translation of the author9
Translation of the author10



Lazzarotti ­ Historical centres: changing definitions

IJPP ­ Italian Journal of Planning Practice 85Vol. I, issue 1 ­ 2011

typological analysis. Change involves all population sectors, and requires an
integrated planning process inside which a great variety of actions are
located. This multidimensional character of the historical centres is the
starting point.
The irruption onto the scene of the European Landscape Convention
(2000) produces the apparently final affirmation of two key principles:

The relevance of the perception of the community (living or visiting),
that becomes a proper, defining factor of landscape;

2. The recognition of the quality of the so­called minor or degraded
landscapes, eliminating, de facto, any principle of a hierarchy of
quality.

1.

Even the concept of heritage starts to show some limits, in particular for
significant portions of territory as historical centres and parks. Even
landscape without history and without quality, in fact, merits attention, that
must be expressed not in the form of protection, strictu sensu, but of
projects, enhancement and management.
This starts a path that seems to lead to a unitary conception of territory, in
which quality and disvalue factors have to relate to each other in a
transformation and management process. The worry that “protecting all
could mean protecting nothing” can be answered by prefiguring an
integrated approach to the enhancement of historical centres (and of heritage
in a larger sense), strictly related to all material and immaterial factors.
The temporary end point of this path seems to lead to the formulation of
some common key concepts, even in the face of contradictions inherent the
duplicity of positions of conservationists and planners. These are:

The relevance of the relationships between historical settlements
(towns, villages, nuclei) and the setting, from which derives the
necessity to adopt a territorial scale for observation;

•

•

• The increasing importance of the functional daily role of heritage.
The enlargement of the concept of heritage users and the necessary
involvement of the community in projects;



Lazzarotti ­ Historical centres: changing definitions

IJPP ­ Italian Journal of Planning Practice 86Vol. I, issue 1 ­ 2011

THE URBANI CODE: A STEP BACKWARDS
In Italy the contraposition between heritage protectors and planners is also a
conflict of professional competences, significantly expressed in the difficult
relationship between the State (specifically the Ministry of Cultural Heritage
and Activities) and the Regions about the cultural heritage and landscape
matters. The State produced some “historic” laws for the protection of
heritage and, most recently, the so­called Urbani Code (Legislative Decree
n. 42/2004), that aims to re­organise these powers, re­centralising some
competences.
The law defines areas of landscape heritage as being subject to specific
safeguards because they are material and visible representations of national
identity and expressions of cultural values – also complexes of buildings that
compose a characteristic aspect having aesthetic and traditional value,
including historical centres and nuclei11 (art. 136, point c). The text
continues with operational criteria for the identification of sites, the public
interest declaration and the regulation of the admitted uses12. So the laws
aim at a precise identification of buildings and sites (art. 139). This seems to
be a return to zoning, mostly because historical centres enter the typical
normative condition of monuments and sites needing a boundary. But the
most important consequence is that an entire centre can be subject to
restrictions or footnoted with specific use regulations and goals for quality.
The backward step of apparently regarding historical centres simply as sites
– and the return from territorial to local scale – naturally implies conceptual
consequences, first of all the transfer of competences to the State,
overriding, in the opinion of planners and regional and local administrators,
the principle of subsidiarity. A strange protectionist drift seems to have been
produced by fears of deregulation or of weaknesses in local administrations

The proposal (for identification) is formulated with reference to the historical, cultural,12
natural, morphological, aesthetic values expressed by the particular aspect and
character of the buildings or sites considered and to their identity value in relation to
the setting in which they are located (art. 138)

Translation of the author11



Lazzarotti ­ Historical centres: changing definitions

IJPP ­ Italian Journal of Planning Practice 87Vol. I, issue 1 ­ 2011

and planners. However, this re­definition (and overlap) of competences
seems to ignore the fact that the processes of re­appropriation and re­
interpretation of historical towns by local communities are well advanced
and probably have taken an irreversible direction.



IJPP ­ Italian Journal of Planning Practice 88Vol. I, issue 1 ­ 2011

REFERENCES

ANCSA (1960) The Charter of Gubbio. Associazione Nazionale Centri Storico­
Artistici
Available from: http://www.eddyburg.it/article/articleview/11185/0/241/

ANCSA (1990) 1960­1990 Un contributo italiano alla riqualificazione della città
esistente: pre­atti. XI International Congress in collaboration with Gubbio
Municipality.

CONGRESS on the EUROPEAN ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE (1975), The
Declaration of Amsterdam.
Available from: http://www.icomos.org/docs/amsterdam.html

COUNCIL of EUROPE (1985) Convention for the Protection of the Architectural
Heritage of Europe.
Available from: http://www.esiweb.org/pdf/granada%20convention.pdf

COUNCIL of EUROPE (2000) European Landscape Convention.
Available from: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/html/176.htm

DAINOTTO, R. (2003) The Gubbio Papers: historic centers in the age of the
economic miracle. Journal of Modern Italian Studies, 8 (1), pp. 67­83.

FRANCESCHINI COMMITTEE (1967) Per la salvezza dei beni culturali in Italia
(vol. III). Atti e documenti della Commissione d’indagine per la tutela e la
valorizzazione del patrimonio storico, archeologico, artistico e del paesaggio.
Roma: Casa Editrice Colombo.

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE on CONSERVATION "KRAKOW 2000"
(2000) The Charter of Krakow 2000. Principles for conservation and
restoration of built heritage.
Available from:
http://lecce­workshop.unile.it/Downloads/The%20Charter%20of%20Krakow%202000.pdf

GAZZOLA, P. et al (1964) International Charter For The Conservation and
Restoration of Monuments and Sites. Second International Congress of
Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments.
Available from: http://www.icomos.org/venice_charter.html

ITALIAN MINISTRY for CULTURAL and ENVIRONMENTAL HERITAGE
(1987) Charter of Conservation and Restoration of artistic and cultural

Lazzarotti ­ Historical centres: changing definitions



IJPP ­ Italian Journal of Planning Practice 89Vol. I, issue 1 ­ 2011

Lazzarotti ­ Historical centres: changing definitions

objects.
Available from: http://www.webalice.it/inforestauro/carta_1987.htm

ITALIAN MINISTRY for EDUCATION (1972) Carta Italiana del Restauro.
Circular n° 117, April 6.
Available from: http://www.fotovideolab.it/vitorchiano/moai/foto/Carta_restauro_1972.pdf

PICCINATO, G. (2005) Historic centres under pressure. Lights and shadows from
the italian experience. Paper presented at the 2005 AESOP Congress, Vienna,
13­17 July 2005.
Available: http://aesop2005.scix.net/data/papers/att/197.fullTextPrint.pdf