Meet the Editors

Lucy Natajaran, co-editor of Built Environment, is Associate Professor at the Bartlett School of Planning, University College London. Her research focuses on participation and learning, in relation to strategic and large-scale urban development.

Dimitrios Panayotopoulos-Tsiros holds research positions at the Bartlett School of Planning, UCL, and the Bennett Institute for Public Policy, University of Cambridge, and is an independent public policy adviser and lecturer. His work sits at the intersection of strategic planning, public policy, and social research.

Dominique Lancrenon is an architect and urban planner, delegate of the urban planners of North of France for SFU, and ECTP-CEU honorary president. At Territoire Europe, she develops participatory platforms in neighbourhoods and cities and exchanges between the experiences of different European countries. 

Inclusive Recovery from Crises and Distasters

This Special Issue of Built Environment seeks to promote the work of inclusion-oriented interventions for recovery from disasters and support efforts to go beyond crises. While crisis-thinking increasingly dominates, we note how inclusionary practice has been a focus throughout Re-Start Europe (ECTP-CEU, 2020), Roadmap to Recovery (UN-HPF, 2022), and the International Participatory Charter (UN-HPF, 2024). Together these are part of a growing international policy agenda for a world shaped by a global poly-crisis (SAPEA, 2020). Recent shocks from climate change, wars, and pandemics helped trigger different forms of partnership and recovery efforts comprising both immediate emergency responses on the ground in the aftermath of disasters, and collective action for rebuilding lives and restoring built environments. But ‘inclusive recovery’ also raises hopes of more collaborative governance practices and building back better for socially just and sustainable places longer term. We explore how recovery work might lead towards such transformative change.

Definitions traced from revolutionary history (Koselleck and Richter, 2006) take crisis to be primarily about the actuality and awareness of suffering, and this was associated with transformation in the face of recurring disasters. Whereas liberal optimists saw economic crises as positive steps forwards, the reality of grinding poverty would influence Marx and Engels, ‘whose use of the concept of crisis alternated between revolutionary hope and economic analysis’ (Koselleck and Richter, 2006, p. 393). This is useful as, rather than viewing the current ‘poly-crisis’ predicament as an apocalyptic or judgement day scenario, it emphasizes quality of life impacts. Similarly, we call attention to the perspective of communities experiencing disasters and suffering personal losses, and the material destruction of home and living spaces. The causes of disasters may be natural or man-made, from military conflict to volcanic eruptions or iterative storms. They may trigger sudden dramatic violence and displace populations, and they may sow the seeds of creeping disintegration in urbanism or erosion of quality of life. In all cases, ‘inclusive recovery’ would orient response efforts towards people’s ability to thrive and respect diverse ways of living.

Responses to climate change require a range of knowledge (Visconti, 2023). Recovery efforts likewise require knowledge of how shocks to urban fabric reshape people’s lives, and must run alongside trauma healing. This requires an appreciation of the structural implications of (i) social formation and vested interests (hierarchies, systems, socio-economic flows) and (ii) the uneven distribution of risks within critical natural environments. Key to inclusive recovery then, is the inclusion of end-user stakeholders – the so-called ordinary residents of places – in recovery planning and decision-making. The unequal levels of resilience (Blaikie et al., 2003) whether to short-term shocks or longer-term vulnerabilities matter greatly, and recovery is a moment to address exclusions and social barriers. Importantly, engagement of grass-roots communities can work in ways that are both emancipatory and burdensome. For instance, self-help might be essential in immediate post-disaster recovery but this leans on those in greatest need, and there is often over-representation of women (Rivera, 2023).

Inter-disciplinary operations are needed to restore built environments and secure long-term resilience. This requires skills in collaborative governance that can shape and deliver policy (McNaught, 2024). Collaborative governance, however, is challenged under conditions of ‘polycrisis’, linked to the planetary-scale magnitude of disasters, interlocking global systems, and deeply capitalist international economic and security policies (Mackova, 2022; Fabbrini, 2025; Malik, 2024). However, there are inherent tensions in the project of nation states working at the supranational level (Fabbrini, 2025). That does not diminish the need to interrogate the here and now of post-disaster contexts, nor should it dampen aspirations of more fundamental transformations needed for sustainable development. Disasters reduce capacity and resources in an affected locality, but they have mobilizing power and can crystalize professional alliances and public sentiment around shared concerns (Kriesi et al., 2024; Oana et al., 2025). This matters because the growth of advocacy coalitions – particularly resilience networks – can produce transformative change (Fields et al., 2025).

In summary, the goal for inclusive recovery networks should be to create resilient liveable places. This means grappling with present impacts and having awareness of ongoing threats to places. The assumption is that a range of professional, governance and civic expertise can coalesce to rebuild and reform social processes as well as material infrastructures. That involves collective decisions, as well as participatory processes, for urbanism that works and has solidarity in the longer term. This ideal is yet to be realized, and the land that remains after disasters is very vulnerable to predatory investment from external interests. In the absence of protective governance, the post-disaster landscape becomes a site of extraction: speculative capital often moves faster than deliberation, and those most affected can be priced out of their own recovery.

To explore the theme of ‘Inclusive Recovery from Crises and Disasters’, we brought together seven papers: one on the Charter from the UN Habitat Professionals Forum (Panayotopoulos-Tsiros et al., 2026); four case studies of recovery; and two reflective pieces. The first two case studies look at responses after disastrous volcanic eruptions (Córdoba Hernández et al., 2026) and flooding (Loescher Montal and Mazereeuw, 2026), the second two are focused efforts for displaced (Grelle, 2026) and marginalized peoples (Stein and Manns, 2026). The last two papers offer commentaries from the perspective of research (Hassan and Natarajan, 2026) and practice (Moore and Goodstadt, 2026) for inclusion in recovery contexts. The collection traces the significance and complexity of inclusive recovery efforts.

Using a participatory democracy lens Panayotopoulos-Tsiros et al. (2026), reviewed the production of participatory principles by an inter-disciplinary forum – consisting of national and international bodies – under the United Nations Habitat Professionals Forum (HPF) in work on their Roadmap to Recovery. These urbanists shared concerns aligned with ‘right to the city’ concepts and experiences as built environment professionals, which highlighted their role in ‘mediating between institutional structures, community needs, and the uncertainties of crisis’ (p. 21).

Córdoba Hernández et al. (2026) provide insights from the island of La Palma, Spain following the Tajogaite volcanic eruption of 2021. They explain the impacts on local housing, economy and landscape, and the reconstruction in Aridane Valley where both citizen participation and geological expertise were critical. This inclusive recovery work had to navigate vulnerabilities, and ultimately its success will hinge on ‘a delicate balance between human needs, such as housing reconstruction and economic revitalization, and the imperative to safeguard the integrity of the volcanic-induced new but fragile ecosystems’ (p. 46).

Loescher Montal and Mazereeuw (2026) investigate the issue of flood risk management and show how critical solidarity is to disaster recovery and long-term risk reduction. They explore the climate change resilience work in Boston, strategies of public space urban drainage in Copenhagen, and participatory flood evacuation planning in Tokyo. The findings demonstrate the inequality of flood impacts – storms surges affecting residents living at the ground level particularly badly – and reveal the link between land division and risk accumulation. People and water must both be able to flow safely, and critical infrastructures especially the ground floors of buildings are vital collective assets.

Grelle studies Ararat, a Kurdish socio-cultural centre in Rome’s Testaccio neighbourhood, which ‘stands out as a transformative component of the city’s reception system – a beacon of inclusivity, cultural reconnection, and grassroots innovation’ (Grelle, 2026). In looking at the details of this place – the certain ways of living, particular infrastructures, and the belonging and presence of certain groups – the wider impacts on the city are also clear. The work involved spaces that were empty or run down. This provision has immediacy but might be more strategic as ‘permanent, strategically planned spaces for temporary reception’ (p. 84), which suggests a new agenda around temporalities, not pop-up forms but ways to integrate crises-driven changes into future plans.

Stein and Manns (2026) consider the healing practices in Lethbridge, Alberta tackling impacts of settler colonialism on Indigenous peoples, and current inequalities in access to amenity that were the result of long-standing socio-spatial biases built into planning systems. A key shift was in representation of knowledges and voices of the four distinct Indigenous nations of the Siksikaitsitapi Territory – the Kainai, Siksika, Piikani, Amskapi Piikuni. The processes sought to counter the narrative erasure, which underscores the importance of integrating worldviews of local people into recovery plans.

Hassan and Natarajan (2026) offer reflections on community researcher training and a trauma recovery project in Gaza. This researcher commentary pays tribute to those ‘with whom our collaborations for research and resilience are currently and ominously paused’ (p. 111). The authors discuss inclusive ways of building knowledge with people in extreme circumstances, living with the effects of war and violence, and the methodologies needed. They conclude with a new articulation of ‘crisis research’, as a mode of inquiry grounded in shared humanity, relational ethics, and community-based sense-making in recovery from disasters.

The final piece from Moore and Goodstadt (2026) is a professional perspective on recovery policy. They underscore the holistic nature of landscape and ‘the powerful connection and dependence local communities have with their wider physical context, history and culture’ (p, 134). While being clear about the real systemic risk and providing data of repeated and highly consequential disasters globally, they present a coherent vision for a path out of the crises. They argue strongly that rebuilding must go beyond simply restoring what was lost and seek to reduce vulnerability, with processes that do not default to centralized bureaucracy, but follow the principles of the HPF charter to strengthen community agency.

To conclude, the theme of this publication – inclusive recovery from crises and disasters – is inspired by the UN Habitat Professionals Forum’s International Participatory Charter and global alliances for transformative action. Across the diverse cities, communities, and governance contexts affected by disasters, the importance of long-term risk reduction is clear. However, a tension is revealed in the studies of disasters, between the desire to return places to their previous state and the need to deal strategically with long-term exposure to risks. Nonetheless, inclusive practices are broadly accepted as critical. They underpin relationships between citizens, civil society, and professional stakeholders who need to collaborate over the longer term for strategic goals of recovery, including societal healing. The driving logics are that (1) in the short term, the detail of social and environmental matters are likely to be in flux and thus open information and collaborations are vital, and (2) over the long-term, interventions based on solidarity can help to align the repair of urban fabric with resilience goals. Ultimately, in moments of crisis, when we expand the knowledge, worldviews, and methodologies used for decision-making for inclusive recovery, it opens a window of opportunity to shift practices into more equitable ways forward.

REFERENCES

• Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I. and Wisner, B. (2003) At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability & Disasters. London: Routledge.
• Córdoba Hernández, R., Pemán Gavín, I., Morán Uriel, J. and Camerin, F. (2026) Participation and urban resilience in post-disaster recovery: lessons from the 2021 volcanic eruption in La Palma (Spain). Built Environment, 52(1), pp. 29–50.
• ECTP-CEU (2020) Re-Start Europe Manifesto: ECTP-CEU 2020 declaration for an inclusive and just post-covid future for all communities. Available at: https://ectp-ceu.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/ECTP-CEU-RESTART-Declaration-Manifesto-2020-final.pdf.
• Fabbrini, S. (2025) Monnet reversed: the intergovernmental solutions of the poly‐crises. Journal of Common Market Studies, 63, pp. 52–64.
• Fields, B., Ray, R.S. and Tolford, T. (2025) The politics of paradigm shift: examining advocacy coalitions and the shift towards resilient streets in New Orleans. Built Environment, 51(3), pp. 367–388.
• Hassan, S. and Natarajan, L. (2026) Making sense of researching crises: reflections on work in Gaza. Built Environment, 52(1), pp. 111–124.
• Grelle, A. (2026) Planning with migrations to overcome crisis: the Case of Ararat, Rome, Italy. Built Environment, 52(1), pp. 71–87.
• Koselleck, R. and Richter, M.W. (2006) Crisis. Journal of the History of Ideas, 67(2), pp. 357–400.
• Kriesi, H., Bojar, A., Altiparmakis, A. and Oana, I.-E. (2024) Coming to Terms with the European Refugee Crisis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Loescher Montal, A. and Mazereeuw, M. (2026) Flows and fragmentations: collective strategies for managing water and protecting people in the face of climate change. Built Environment, 52(1), pp. 51–70.
• Mackova, D. (2022) EU as proponent of sustainable development: convergences and divergences in times of crisis. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov, Series VII: Social Sciences and Law, 15(Suppl), pp. 25–34.
• McNaught, R. (2024) The application of collaborative governance in local level climate and disaster resilient development – a global review. Environmental Science and Policy, 151, 103627.
• Malik, S. (2024) From traditional to humane security challenges: analysing Pakistan’s response to the poly crisis of Covid 19. Strategic Studies, 44(1).
• Moore, K. and Goodstadt, V. (2026) The challenges and opportunities of community participation in disaster recovery. Built Environment, 52(1), pp. 125–139.
• Oana, I.E., Kriesi, H. and Altiparmakis, A. (2025) Dynamics of protest mobilisation in the European poly-crisis. Journal of European public policy, 32(8), pp. 1874–1905.
• Panayotopoulos-Tsiros, D., Lancrenon, D. and Natarajan, L. (2026) Participation in Crisis: Professional Lessons from the International Participatory Charter. Built Environment, 52(1), pp. 10–28.
• Rivera, L.G. (2023) Responding with care: women community leaders’ care pactices in gang-controlled neighbourhoods in Medellín, Colombia. Built Environment, 49(4), pp. 614–632.
• SAPEA (2022) Strategic Crisis Management in the European Union. Available at: https://sapea.info/wp-content/uploads/crisis-management-report.pdf.
• Stein, P. and Manns, T. (2026) The practice of healing: urban planning and policy case studies from Lethbridge, Alberta. Built Environment, 52(1), pp. 88–110.
• UN HPF (2022) Roadmap to Recovery. Working together for just & regenerative recovery. The contributions of the professions. https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2022/04/final_hpf_roadmap_220426.pdf.
• UN-HPF (2024) The International Participatory Charter for Urban and Territorial Development to Deliver the New Urban Agenda. The United Nations Habitat Professionals Forum. Available at: https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2024/10/hpf_ipc_2024_-_wuf12_lowres_1.pdf.
• Visconti, C. (2023) Co-production of knowledge for climate-resilient design & planning in Naples, Italy. Habitat International, 135, 102748.

Inclusive Recovery from Crises and Disasters

About this issue

Issue number

Summary

To promote the work of inclusion-oriented interventions for recovery from disasters and support efforts to go beyond crises this issue brings together seven papers: one on the Charter from the UN Habitat Professionals Forum, four cases studies, and two reflective pieces. Together these traces the significance and complexity of inclusive recovery efforts.

Lucy Natajaran, Dimitrios Panayotopoulos-Tsiros, Dominique Lancrenon

09 Mar 2026

Share

• Tweet this
• Pin It
• Share on facebook
• Share on Google

• Inclusive Recovery from Crises and Disasters
  LUCY NATARAJAN, DIMITRIOS PANAYOTOPOULOS-TSIROS and DOMINIQUE LANCRENON 
   
• Participation in Crisis: Professional Lessons from the International Participatory Charter
  DIMITRIOS PANAYOTOPOULOS-TSIROS, DOMINIQUE LANCRENON and LUCY NATARAJAN
   
• Participation and Urban Resilience in Post-Disaster Recovery: Lessons from the 2021 Volcanic Eruption in La Palma (Spain)
  RAFAEL CÓRDOBA HERNÁNDEZ, IGNACIO PEMÁN GAVÍN, JAVIER MORÁN URIEL and FEDERICO CAMERIN 
   
• Flows and Fragmentations: Collective Strategies for Managing Water and Protecting People in the Face of Climate Change
  ANGELA LOESCHER MONTAL and MIHO MAZEREEUW
   
• Planning with Migrations to Overcome Crisis: The Case of Ararat, Rome, Italy
  ANGELINA GRELLE
   
• The Practice of Healing: Urban Planning and Policy Case Studies from Lethbridge, Alberta
  PERRY STEIN and TAYLOR MANNS
   
• Making Sense of Researching Crises: Reflections on Work in Gaza
  SARA HASSAN and LUCY NATARAJAN
   
• The Challenges and Opportunities of Community Participation in Disaster Recovery
  KATHRYN MOORE and VINCENT GOODSTADT

• A Report from the Twelfth World Urban Forum 
  LUCY NATARAJAN

Lebanon’s Urban Development and Planning

Arab Modernism(s): Cities, History, and Culture

Arab Modernism(s) is an exploration of how the Arab world encountered modernism – sometimes inadvertently, sometimes deliberately – and how those encounters continue to shape the built environment of its cities today. Adhering to his late father’s belief that ‘cities are nothing without people’, Yasser Elsheshtawy writes not just about the buildings, but the lives lived in and around them. His narrative weaves together personal anecdotes and works of fiction and film, thus providing a textured backdrop to his central theme: the evolution of modernism in Arab cities. Following the introduction, the next ten chapters each focuses  on a different city or town, moving from Hassan Fathy’s Gourna to Cairo, Algiers, Rabat and Casablanca, Amman, and Beirut and then to the Gulf cities of Riyadh, Kuwait, Doha, and Abu Dhabi and Dubai. The book closes with a Coda – a tribute to the author’s father, Hassan Elsheshtawy.

Yasser Elsheshtawy is Adjunct Professor of Architecture at Columbia University, New York and Non-Resident Fellow at the Arab Gulf States Institute, Washington, DC. He is author or editor of five other books in the Routledge Planning, History and Environment series including Temporary Cities: Resisting Transience in Arabia and Riyadh: Transforming a Desert City.

For more about this book, see the authors three blogs ‘Why Arab Cities Matter’ at Blogged Environmment

Preface and Acknowledgements

Perspectives on Urban Greenspace: Progress, Failures and Ways Ahead

About this issue

Issue number

Summary

This issue provides insights into recent advances and persisting challenges in urban greening, framed as green infrastructure (GI) or nature-based solutions (NbS), while identifying future priorities in light of global urbanization trends. Contributions from Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Europe, alongside a global review, provide a deliberately international scope, thereby enabling comparison of shared challenges and locally specific responses.

STEPHAN PAULEIT, EMANUEL GIANNOTTI, MARTINA VAN LIEROP and RIEKE HANSEN

24 Nov 2025

Share

• Tweet this
• Pin It
• Share on facebook
• Share on Google

• Perspectives on Urban Greenspace: Progress, Failures and Ways Ahead
  STEPHAN PAULEIT, EMANUEL GIANNOTTI, RIEKE HANSEN and MARTINA VAN LIEROP
   
• Is the Grass Always Greener? A Retrospective Analysis of Green Infrastructure Planning Post-1994
  IAN MELL
   
• Towards Greener Cities in Latin America: The Role of Policies in Shaping Urban Vegetation Dynamics
  ALEXIS VÁSQUEZ, EMANUEL GIANNOTTI, ELIZABETH GALDÁMEZ, CYNNAMON DOBBS, JUAN DAVID AMAYA-ESPINEL, TAÍCIA MARQUES, and PABLA LOZANO RAMÍREZ
   
• Finding Recourse for Public Sector Urban Green Infrastructure Uptake in the City of Tshwane and Beyond
  TANIA DU PLESSIS and CHRISTINA BREED
   
• Moving NbS from Concept to Action in Sub-Saharan Africa: Strategic Pathways for Scaling Implementation
  KIRK B. ENU and STEPHAN PAULEIT
   
• Urban Nature Plans: Strategic Tool for Integrated Biodiversity and Climate Planning in German Cities
  RIEKE HANSEN, LENA ENDERICH and MCKENNA DAVIS
   
• Climate Resilient Green Cities of the Future: Building Evidence for Action
  STEPHAN PAULEIT, SABRINA ERLWEIN, SANDRA FEDER, SIMONE LINKE and TERESA ZÖLCH

Add Peripheral Centralities: The Lost and Past Urbanity of the Suburbs

The term ‘peripheral centralities’ may seem something of an oxymoron and yet the spatial peripheries of cities have often been more central to urban development processes than is appreciated. To better understand the nature of peripheral centrality, Peripheral Centralities: The Lost and Past Urbanity of the Suburbs brings together a wide variety of examples of lost and forgotten peripheral centralities of different sizes, purpose, geographical location, and political complexion, dating from the first decades of the twentieth century to the present day. Following the introduction, two chapters provide broad overviews of peripheral centralities in international and national systems of centralities. The next four chapters look at plans from settings as different as Dublin as Shanghai that, for one reason or another, failed to materialize. The following eight chapters each describes cases where projects have been realized, ranging from peripheral townships in England to a Chinese steel city. To conclude the book, the editors highlight the themes revealed in the foregoing chapters and consider the part an appreciation of peripheral centralities might play in the development of urban theory from the outside in.

Nicholas A. Phelps is Professor and Chair of Urban Planning and Associate Dean International in the Faculty of Architecture Building and Planning at the University of Melbourne.

Roger Keil is Distinguished Research Professor in the Faculty of Environmental and Urban Change at York University, Toronto and Fellow of Canadian Institute for Advanced Research’s (CIFAR) Humanity’s Urban Future program.

Paul J. Maginn is Director of the Public Policy Institute and an Associate Professor of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Western Australia, Perth.

Contents

Preface

Introduction: Peripheral Centralities – Lost and Past Nicholas A. Phelps, Roger Keil and Paul Maginn

1. Centres in the Metropolitan Periphery: A Spatial Planning History 
   Robert Freestone
    
2. Soviet Sputnik Towns: The Past of a Sustainable Urban Future? Remaking Periphery through Distributing Centrality
   Oleg Golubchikov and Irina Ilina
    
3. Pipedream or Growth Area Benchmark? Berwick’s Metrotown Plan
   Victoria Kolankiewicz, David Nichols and Nicholas A. Phelps
    
4. Flying Boats, Garden Suburbs, Oil Refineries and Motorways – Exploring the Forgotten Twentieth-Century Plans for Dublin Bay
   Ruth McManus
    
5. ‘Metropolitan Adelaide’s Unique Opportunity’: Charles Reade’s Plan of Adeladie and Suburbs (1917)
   Christine Garnaut
    
6. Informal Centralities against Fascism: Popular Urbanization in Madrid, 1940s–1970s
   Álvaro Sevilla-Buitrago and Noel A. Manzano Gómez
    
7. The Greater Shanghai Plan (1927–1937): An Unfulfilled Urban Dream
   Richard Hu
    
8. War, Military Settlements, and Planetary (Sub)Urbanization
   Gabriel Schwake and Carola Hein
    
9. Exploring the Emergence of Peripheral Centralities in Bengaluru: The Case of Electronics City
   H.S. Sudhira
    
10. What Peripheral Centrality Does to the City: The ‘EUR neighbourhood’ in Rome, Italy
    Marco Cremaschi
     
11. ‘A Bright New World of Convenience, Efficiency, and Plenty’: The Incorporation and Dissolution of Peripheral Mass Public Housing in Newcastle and Dundee, 1960s to 1990s
    Andrew Hoolachan and Mark Tewdwr-Jones
     
12. The Social Ambitions and Failures of Architecture in Oslo’s New Towns of 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s
    Per Gunnar Røe
     
13. Wuhan’s Red Steel City: The Waning Centrality of an Industrial Satellite Town?
    Julie T. Miao, Nicholas A. Phelps, Sainan Lin, and Zhigang Li
     
14. Lost and Peripheral Centralities in the Post-Colony Lessons from West Africa
    Laurent Fourchard
     
15. Conclusion: Histories beyond ‘Methodological Cityism’
    Keil, Paul Maginn and Nicholas Phelps

The Evolution of Urban Heritage Conservation and the Role of Raymond Lemaire

Contents

Introduction

1. From Archaeology to Conservation
   From Archaeology to Conservation
   A FAMILY LEGACY
   TRAINING IN THEORY AND PRACTICE
   University Education
   Training in the Field: the CGRP and the Ministry of Public Works
   BUILDING A NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL NETWORK
   The Recovery of Looted Artworks
   Heritage Protection in Wartime
   First Contacts with Italy 
   A PERSONAL VISION OF CONSERVATION
   Raymond M. Lemaire and the restauro critico
   The St. Lambert Chapel in Heverlee
   THE VENICE CONGRESS (1964): A TURNING POINT
   Drafting the Venice Charter

   The Founding of ICOMOS
    

2. Constructing an Ideal Historic City: The Great Beguinage of Louvain (1962–1972)
   A UNIQUE CONTEXT
   An Exceptional ‘Traditional’ Ensemble
   A Tailor-Made Programme
   A Flexible Schedule
   A Great Freedom of Action
   THE VENICE CHARTER PUT TO THE TEST OF THE REHABILITATION OF URBAN ENSEMBLES
   The Interiors: Conservation vs Comfort 
   The Façades: A Radical Restoration
   The Additions: From Contrast to Integration
   The Public Space: A Picturesque Vision
   A REFLECTIVE PROCESS
   Lessons from Gustavo Giovannoni
   The Historic Cities’ ‘Way of Being’
    
3. Ideal vs Reality: Brussels (1967–1990)
   CONTRASTING PRECEDENTS: BRUSSELIZATION AND URBAN SCENERY (1940–1960)
   Towards a Functionalist City
   The ‘Sacred Blocks’: An Urban Scenery
   THE INPUT OF INTERNATIONAL REFLECTIONS AND R.M. LEMAIRE
   The 1960s: A Gradual Awareness
   The Quartier des Arts: A Catalyst
   A Challenging Context 
   NEW METHODOLOGICAL TOOLS FOR A NEW VISION
   Learning from Eastern European Experiences
   Restoring the Links between People and their Built Environment
   ‘Thinning Out’ and Opening the Blocks
   Selective Preservation
   ‘Architectural Design in an Old Urban Environment’
   Correcting the Cityscape
   To Conclude
    
4. Towards a Holistic Approach
   R.M. LEMAIRE, A ‘COMPLETE ARCHITECT’
   THE EMERGENCE OF INTEGRATED CONSERVATION
   The Council of Europe’s Committee on Monuments and Sites
   New Doctrinal Instruments
   The Venice Charter: A Necessary Revision
   Bruges: A Laboratory for ‘Integral Planning’
   From Rehabilitation to ‘Retrospective Utopia’
   Towards Post-Modernism?

Conclusion