The Value of Architecture: SAVE or Science?

Evaluation systems designed to estimate the quality of architecture or urban areas are not yet fully developed across the Nordic countries, though they have been of growing interest for a number of years. From a historical perspective, this interest is a reaction to the radical changes that urban and rural landscapes have undergone since the post war era. Unsentimental demolition and redevelopment schemes took place without any particular veneration for the values of the existing building culture.
In the late 1980s, Denmark joined the European Council Granada Convention of 1985 on the preservation of Europe’s architectural heritage. This resulted in a greater emphasis on building conservation and led to the development of the Survey of Architectural Values in the Environment (SAVE) by the Danish heritage authorities. The value assessment was initially meant for evaluating building heritage and cultural values of cities, but today it also includes contemporary buildings and urban environments
(Kulturarvsstyrelsen, 2011, p. 8). In Sweden, no specific methodology or widespread analytic tool like SAVE has been developed yet, however the association Bygningskulturvårdsföreningen supports citizens and authorities in efforts to evaluate the cultural value of the built environment. The National Trust of Norway is a voluntary association, a trust, and a property owner. Since 1845, it has developed expertise in restoration and maintenance of historical monuments. It is based on personal memberships, but municipalities, institutions, and organizations can also hold memberships.
Today’s wider demand for qualitative evaluation systems is partly due to the great number of existing buildings and urban areas that are in need of being renovated either for reduction of energy consumption or transformation for new use. Such interventions need to be led by adequate analysis of cultural aspects in correlation to social, economic, and environmental values. But, as mentioned, these systems do not exist as generalized international standards or digital programs and therefore are not as easily implemented as quantitative evaluation systems such as LCA, LCC, or DGNB.