Authenticity of the built heritage is the sum of all the characteristics that allows for particular built fabric to present and represent its context and period (space and time). The materiality of the actual heritage is only valuable because it transports authenticity. We are currently dealing with this issue from different perspectives and it is a very positive sign to see this issue getting a real public debate. It demonstrates social emancipation from all stakeholders by the end of the public debate. We should not prioritize the enrichment of all property owners, namely in the historic centre. This isn’t sustainable, and it is very incompatible with the assumed compromise with UNESCO to become a world heritage site. If we don’t create a systematic methodology of avoiding this kind of continuous pressure on the entire historical centre, we are going to keep on seeing a lot of things go. The facades of the old city are the framework of our collective identification of the city and its public spaces: they belong to the collectivity as much as to the property owner.
It is unquestionable that the planning and architecture of our days has to operate using the layers of the historical city, relate to it and continue to produce value with equivalent collective human proportion and significance. When we don’t evaluate the conservation of the historic fabric or demand of ourselves as designers the inclusion and understanding of the historical context, we risk substituting a highly qualified architectural code, loaded with authenticity and a social dimension, with un-signified generic plot ratio increase.