19

HERITAGE AS A MATTER OF CARE, AND

CONSERVATION AS CARING FOR THE
MATTER
Loes Veldpaus and Hanna Szemző

Introduction
In this chapter we explore how care and care ethics, conceptually, can help create new per-
spectives on our relations with the historic environment and practices of adaptive reuse of built
heritage. We argue that using ‘care’ instead of ‘protection’ as a frame for how we approach
and deal with heritage can change how we conceptualize conservation. We explore what hap-
pens to our understanding of the historic environment when we define conservation as a care
arrangement between human and other-than-human actors. Traditionally, heritage manage-
ment tends to focus on the protection of heritage from harm. Here instead, we propose to think
of conservation not as a practice of ‘protecting from,’ but as a way to ‘care for’ the historic envi-
ronment. We show that conceptualizing conservation as care highlights the way the historic
environment reproduces spatial conditions and injustices in a way traditional conceptualizations
of conservation do not. As such, our assumption is that framing conservation as care changes
how we theorize the intent of the action of conservation. It also puts the focus on the ongoing
care relation between people (through heritage), and between people and heritage. Traditional
ideas of conservation with their focus on expert knowledge, materiality, and protection gener-
ally do not focus on this relationality. Subsequently, they do not reckon with the ethics of those
relations, nor think how we (re)produce inequality and injustice through our (lack of) care for
certain stories, histories, and structures within the historic environment. Using care as an ana-
lytical framing provides a way of understanding and addressing relations, and relationality, with
and in place, foregrounding the importance of the ethics involved (Till 2012).
We first theorize care as a concept in the conservation context, and we then explore this
conceptualization illustrated by two case studies: 170/5 High Street West, Sunderland (United
Kingdom), three vacant buildings in a highly deprived area in the North East of England, and
Hof Prädikow, a manorial complex in Brandenburg, near Berlin (Germany).1

Heritage as a Matter of Care

One could argue that ‘taking care of old buildings’ is an informal definition for conservation.
In heritage studies this has been critiqued, not so much for the act of ‘taking care’ in itself,

DOI: 10.4324/9781003031536-19
 Heritage as a Matter of Care 195

but for its focus on old buildings. As critiqued by many, the processes around identifying
and conserving built heritage are often too much about a very limited set of objects and
narratives, focused on material assets that represent a part of history in a particular way, and
forming a particular perspective (Dicks 2000; Meskell 2015). To acknowledge this process,
heritage is now commonly conceptualized as a process and practice of selecting, interpreting,
and presenting the past. As such, we can ask who is selecting, interpreting, and presenting,
and thus which layers of material, whose values, and which versions of these histories are
being foregrounded and preserved for posterity. Through this process, heritage conservation
is then also defining the future. Heritage is a means to an end, it is made to ‘do’ things in (re)
enacting, (re)producing, and mobilizing some past(s) in the present.
The act of ‘taking care’ (in ‘taking care of old buildings’), and the ways in which care is
being given, received, or withheld, has not been subject to much questioning. Feminist scholars
define care as an ethical practice and attitude that implies relationality, between actors and their
environment (Fisher and Tronto 1990). Berenice Fisher and Joan Tronto (ibid.: 40) suggest that
this includes “our bodies, our selves, and our environment, all of which we seek to interweave
in a complex, life-sustaining web.” Most care literature focuses on human-to-human relations,
the ways we care (e.g., care for, about, with), and what the related moral principles are (Midgley
2018). Some work engages more explicitly with the care relations between people and their
environments (Barnes 2012; Mattern 2018; Puig de la Bellacasa 2017; Till 2012). We want to
explore how an ethics of care perspective can help to rethink the ways we deal with our built
heritage.We do this by conceptually (re)framing heritage as a ‘matter-of-care,’ after the work on
‘matters of care’ by María Puig de la Bellacasa (2017). Subsequently, we re-frame conservation
practices as the ways we care about, for, or through heritage.
When it comes to built heritage, and protection of the historic environment, there is a
substantial body of literature and normative texts on how best to protect (see Veldpaus and
Pereira Roders 2014). While protection is a form of care, limiting care to protection is obvi-
ously reductive (Tronto 2013).While legal frameworks around built heritage tend to focus on
protective measures, conservation practices are much more varied and nuanced. People care
for, about, and through heritage and take care of it in many different and co-existing ways: For
example, through work, volunteering, demolishing, visiting, dwelling, cleaning, dismantling,
listening, enjoying, or creating space—potentially all expressions of care. A lot of this takes
place outside of any formal conservation work, in the everyday use, maintenance, and repair
of materials and meanings, through the actions of people who want to share their history,
identity, and culture, by reaching out to peers in past, present, and future.
Care for, with, about, or through the material world, and conceptualizing conservation as
a practice of care, is about reinterpreting, questioning, and rethinking the work that is and
could be done in a conservation context, by anyone involved. It is about discussing what the
implications of this work are, who is doing it, and what, and thus who, is cared for, and who
is not, and by doing so we reflect on current practices, as well as find new ways forward, for
example through new forms of (re)commoning and (re)collectivizing heritage as a public
good.

Conservation Through the Lens of Care

We introduce two projects to illustrate how care takes shape in the everyday practices of adaptive
reuse. The buildings in these projects were cared for long before they became formally listed as
196 Loes Veldpaus and Hanna Szemző

heritage, and when they were in use they were, in their own way, focal points within their com-
munities.This focus moving elsewhere resulted in a lack of attention and active care for the sites.
Those in power, however, the heritage authority, cared enough about them to use protection as
a mechanism to make demolition difficult. This did not protect the buildings from falling into
disrepair, but it does mean they have not been demolished. The care lens introduces a distinc-
tion that ‘conservation’ does not make: It was apparently acceptable to care ‘about’ the buildings
without caring ‘for’ them, or ‘through’ them for the neighborhood. So, we can wonder why, and
by whom this care was being withheld. Our aim here is to show how the care perspective raises
these questions in the first place. A group of people are caring for these buildings once again
though.Their time and energy are focused on developing collaborations and building commu-
nity as well as on restoration. This care, however, seems to have little or nothing to do with the
protected status of the buildings or their formal ‘heritage significance.’

Hof Prädikow and 170/5 High Street West

The former manorial complex of Hof Prädikow is located in the state of Brandenburg, in
the countryside, and is about 50 kilometers northeast of Berlin (see Figure 19.1). The sur-
rounding area is dominated by farmland and woods and the natural preserve area Märkische
Schweiz is just a few kilometers away. It is a majestic estate, with a stream of run-down
buildings, which are gradually being turned into a co-housing and co-working space, as
part of a housing cooperative (Darr and Novy-Huy 2020). This housing cooperative brings
together a group of Berliners, who have been working since 2015 on establishing co-housing
and co-working spaces and creating a community center in Hof Prädikow. After centuries

FIGURE 19.1 OpenHeritage visit to Hof Prädikow. Source: Loes Veldpaus, 2019.
 Heritage as a Matter of Care 197

of aristocratic ownership, the 9.5 hectare-sized estate was nationalized following the Second
World War. It was used for agricultural purposes and a distillery during the existence of the
post-war German Democratic Republic. German reunification in 1990 led to the dissolu-
tion of these activities, followed by vacancy and deterioration. Since 2015, 46 adults and 26
children have gotten involved in the new reuse project, which aims to create a model for
rural regeneration, offering an escape from the overheated housing market in Berlin, while
keeping ties to its economic and labor markets.
Quite different is the case in Sunderland, as it is located on a high street, in an urban area,
and involves three Grade II Listed Buildings (Historic England 1978).These three dilapidated
buildings played an important role in the urban history of Sunderland, a post-industrial city
in the northeast of England (see Figure 19.2). The changes in commerce and city structure
have meant a loss of function and use for the buildings, which led to vacancy and deteriora-
tion (TWBPT et al. 2020). The current gradual renovation is led by a building preservation
trust, undertaken in collaboration with various other local stakeholders, to develop new uses,
create mutual benefit in doing the buildings up, and provide accessible space for a variety of
users.The Sunderland buildings were built as merchant houses in the late 1700s and were part
of the first wave of post-medieval development, showing the (industrial) merchants’ wealth.
Only a few years after they were built, the houses were turned into shops and offices as the
street they are on became the ‘high street’ and the commercial heart of the town. One of the
buildings is linked to what later became Barclays Bank, while another is the original loca-
tion for Binns, a department store that became a national chain. After being left vacant and in
disrepair for at least the past two decades, the buildings were finally obtained by Sunderland
City Council and gifted to the Tyne and Wear Building Preservation Trust (TWBPT) in 2018.
TWBPT is a trust set up in the 1970s to restore heritage assets in the Tyne and Wear region,
mainly by bringing them back into use.

FIGURE 19.2 The first three buildings 170/5 High Street West Sunderland. Source: LoesVeldpaus, 2019.
198 Loes Veldpaus and Hanna Szemző

Care and Protection

Legal protection is absolutely relevant in both cases. It creates a focus and opens up fund-
ing possibilities, and importantly it provided the legislative and regulatory framework that
saved the buildings: It meant the buildings could not simply be demolished. This did not
prevent them from falling in major disrepair. Both cases saw decades of vacancy, under-
use, and deterioration. Formal heritage protection meant the buildings were protected
from demolition, thus cared ‘about,’ but not cared ‘for.’ The protection agencies have been
supportive partners in the current adaptive reuse processes. Other public sector organiza-
tions were important as well, including the local authorities, which in both cases have been
part of the support network.
More importantly, however, heritage protection created the opportunity for various people
to come together and develop a network of relations with and around those buildings, making
the current reuse processes possible. This attention is not because all of a sudden these build-
ings became financially attractive investments. Quite the contrary: There is a vested interest
beyond the commercial, in caring for the wider area, the neighborhood, a particular group of
people. That is made possible through investing energy, time, and resources in these buildings,
as we will discuss further below.
Finally, both cases benefit from a more general shift in heritage policy and funding pri-
orities, moving away from just protection and material restoration, toward also facilitating
the use of the buildings, and supporting the people using it. For example, the Hof Prädikow
team receives support specifically aimed at facilitating their interaction with the villagers,
with the clear view that the manor should at least partially fulfill its former functions as
the center of the village. The Sunderland project received funding from the Architectural
Heritage Fund to match its crowdfunding initiative with a pound for a pound. The cam-
paign ‘Buy a brick’ (on Crowdfunder) was set up to support the building’s reconstruction as
well as community use, while also using the crowdfunding initiative to build a wider online
community of interest.
Tending to the material in itself is a care relation, as the involved practices of repair and
maintenance make the ‘valuable’ matter and meanings endure (Yarrow 2019). This does not
just lead to the question of what should be kept, and why, but also who it is valuable for, and
why. When we use the lens of care, questions like “Who is (not) being cared for, through
caring for this matter?” and “What and who is (not) being cared for, through making some
material last?” are not commonly asked. Can we really separate our dealings with the mate-
rial world from our dealings with people? These questions show how care can offer different
perspectives, and raise different questions, for the work of conservation.

Care, Collaboration, and Community

In the case of Sunderland the adaptive reuse process is being led by the TWBPT, a trust spe-
cializing in ‘difficult’ restoration projects. The aim is developing a viable future for buildings
through restoration. This means tending to the material, but also stimulating, facilitating, and
weaving a self-sustaining network of care to secure future maintenance and use. The work
therefore involves obtaining funding and planning permission and overseeing construction
and restoration works, as much as it does collaborating with (future) tenant(s) and users, local
organizations, small businesses, artists, neighborhood organizations, students and staff from
 Heritage as a Matter of Care 199

the local college and universities, local government, and creating links with other buildings,
spaces, and projects in the area.The connections are being developed in a multiplicity of ways
by, and through, all the partners in the network, with the buildings at the center, as a place
to meet, to use, to organize around and through. Events and activities organized vary from
heritage informed events such as lectures and exhibitions on the history of the buildings
and the area, to a community mural (see Figure 19.3) and pop-up coffee shop, an exhibition
and workshop on ‘Rebel Women of Sunderland,’ and various music performances, podcast
recordings, and arts and crafts workshops organized by a coffee and record shop, and the future
tenants of 172-5 High Street West, Pop Recs (see Hellawell 2019; Pop Recs 2020; Sunderland
Culture et al. 2019; TWBPT 2019). One of the authors was involved in organizing some of
these events as a form of action-research. This started the process of reflecting on what and
who is cared for and by whom, as well as what types of care are wanted and needed. All the
network-building and collaborative work is entangled with the restoration of these buildings,
which clearly has to be much more than restoring materiality.
This is particularly important in a neighborhood ranked among the 10% most deprived
neighborhoods in England (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
2019). In many ways, it can seem like there are more urgent needs in this area than restoring a
few buildings. However, as Marian Barnes (2012) and Shannon Mattern (2018) suggest, there
is importance in being able to care for one’s environment, and in feeling cared for by how the
environment is designed and maintained. Then maybe the opposite is also true, not feeling
cared for by an environment that is not maintained and looks dilapidated.

FIGURE 19.3 Inside 174 High Street West: Community mural by Kathryn Robertson with
Heritage Open Days 2019 visitors. Art by krillustrates (https://krillustrates​.bigcartel​
.com). Source: Loes Veldpaus, 2019.
200 Loes Veldpaus and Hanna Szemző

In Sunderland, we saw that some people care mostly for the buildings, whether that is its
layers of history, the aesthetics, the construction, the type of bricks, or the shopfronts. Others
care more for the space it creates, an accessible space, a safe space, an event space, a place to
meet, a place to get a coffee and a chat. Traditionally, conservation is only ‘for’ the former
group.We would argue this separation is unproductive.The stories told by and in the building
are part of how accessible and safe it is. How does it feel, for example, for those not acknowl-
edged in those stories? We have to keep asking ourselves who is not being cared for in the
approach taken. We neither can or should care for everyone in the same way. Some people
will, and others will not need or want to be cared for by the buildings, their stories, or their
users, or care for these buildings. But it is important to reflect on that, because as heritage
is used to create belonging and community, it also defines who does not belong (Anderson
1983; Hall 1999; Said 1994). What is the role of heritage in creating this need or want to be
cared for, or not? And can changing stories and approaches to the materiality change this?
Heritage easily reproduces structural inequalities. This happens in the everyday, in the prac-
tices of maintaining and repairing some worlds and not others, in the careless reproduction of
harmful histories, and the exclusion of narratives and voices. Awareness of this is key. One of
the stories that could easily go untold, for example, is about the Binns family, who owned and
ran No. 172/3, the Binns drapery and department store. They were Quakers, and as it turns
out, quite a radical family. In the late 1830s they set up a mechanics institute in Sunderland,
got arrested for sedition, and were active in the anti-slavery movement and advertised their
refusal to sell “any goods manufactured from cotton not warranted to be free labour grown”
(Moss 2004). A story like this will surely speak to the residents in the neighborhood and to
the future tenants differently than one of rich industrialists and merchant houses.
At Hof Prädikow, collaboration and community have been crucial too, albeit in a different
way.The village Hof Prädikow only has 250 people. It is a very small village, which forms part
of a larger municipality. Many of its buildings already stand vacant, among others its former
school complex.They face depopulation and a loss of opportunities in this area, and it seemed
hard to turn around this trend despite the availability of extra government funding for rural
redevelopment. The site was rediscovered by a group of people who had developed ideas
about starting a co-housing project. The Hof Prädikow group is trying to integrate caring
for their own (housing) needs with a care for the wider village they have become part of by
refurbishing this formerly derelict historical site. The cooperatives’ activism and activities are
of course also inseparable from the trend of finding alternative housing solutions outside of
the Berlin housing market.
Some members from the Hof Prädikow cooperative have been living in the nearby vil-
lage for years, slowly building up a community interested in co-housing, as well as becoming
part of the established village community. By creating a physical space where they can meet,
they are reconnecting the new community in the manorial complex to the current life in the
village. The Village Barn is seen as the connection between the village and the housing com-
munity. It is a place to meet and discuss and organize events and it also provides a forum to
address possible rumors and handle conflicts.The needs and expectations of various actors are
different though: While some villagers would like to see craftspeople moving in, the current
residents of the co-housing are freelancers who tend to work long-distance and are tied to
the Berlin labor market. Many villagers, however, are glad someone again cares for this com-
plex and want to contribute their knowledge about the site and its former uses. One way or
another, the long-term sustainability of this conservation project will depend strongly both on
 Heritage as a Matter of Care 201

collaboration within the housing cooperative, but also with the village. It will remain impor-
tant to develop and reflect on the relations built and sustained through this building complex,
by listening to each other’s critiques and needs; and in the way they are developing and main-
taining the barn as an inclusive space for encounter, both in its material and immaterial form.
Another way community and collaboration has been important for Hof Prädikow is their
capacity for linking into wider networks. This is a group of people with cultural and financial
capital, and they have been able to mobilize their connections and knowledge to make sure
they could take on the care for this complex of buildings.They collaborated with the German
foundation Stiftung trias (Darr and Novy-Huy 2020), who helped them develop a financial
structure to acquire the site in the framework of a lease agreement. The group also moves in
a network of similar co-housing initiatives in Brandenburg (Kreativorte Brandenburg 2020)
and is part of the cooperative Mietergenossenschaft SelbstBau e.G. These networks provide them
with access to legal and practical knowledge related to co-housing, as well as better access,
knowledge, and connections for funding and other resources. In the competition for funding,
access to the relevant networks and resources is crucial. It means being able to position an
organization or heritage asset in such a way it can be cared for. It also means, however, due to
the element of competition, many other assets will not receive this attention, as they do not
have a community with the capital to make this happen. This is an important aspect to reflect
on as well when looking at conservation as care.

Reflections on Conservation as Care

As argued by Barnes (2012: 123) and Sara Ahmed (2017: 266), the practice of care is not
inherently good, and neither, we would add, is conservation. We have to be aware of the
cultural, social, and political functions both perform. Both cases illustrate how looking at
conservation as care allows us to see that conservation is not about the buildings only: It has
to be about the relations between people, and between people and buildings. Using care as
an analytical framing provides a way of addressing relations, and relationality, with and in
place, but it also has to be a way of reckoning with its workings, and the histories and struc-
tures the work of care and conservation sustain. Care is being ‘done’ in the relation between
people, and between people and place. As such we need to reflect and act on the ethics, and
thus how the work of care sustains or ignores certain structures, institutes, groups, and his-
tories, on who gains from it, and who loses out, and who stands to lose if care is withdrawn.
(Re)establishing collaborative networks, through mutually supportive communities and
spaces, is not easy especially after long periods of neglect. Neglecting physical space likely also
indicates that the connected communities have not been cared for very actively. How to bring
together, listen to, and involve people, and understand the various needs, and thus care for one
another, within, through, and beyond these sites, is actually crucial for conservation in both
cases.These are not radical statements, but the care perspective makes them visible, and makes
them part of the same process. Caring for people is not separate from caring for place. By
not paying attention to this, conservation often remains a practice of re-inscribing patterns of
(un)belonging rather than one of challenging and changing these patterns.
With a focus on place regeneration and civic engagement, the long-term conservation
of both sites is as dependent on the buildings as well as how they facilitate processes of col-
laboration and care. In this chapter we have aimed to illustrate how the lens of care changes
the perspective as well as the questions asked when it comes to conservation. We argue that
202 Loes Veldpaus and Hanna Szemző

conceptualizing conservation as care can highlight how activities undertaken in conserva-

tion are more complex than material protection. Rather than looking at what it entails to
protect and restore a complex of buildings, we shift the perspective to questions such as how
and why do we (not) care for place? And what are the ethics involved in this process? How
do we care for each other through place? This involves processes of repair and restoration,
as much as it does engagement and collaboration. It involves networks and relationships, but
also policies and funding. Proposing this different lens helps to make visible the work con-
servation performs, how it includes and excludes, and how this work is being done through
the way we tend to the material and immaterial matter. As such, we do not argue that care
should replace conservation, rather that we broaden our view, and shift our perspective.
This can enrich the way we look at conservation as a practice of care for one another and
our environment, and the ethics of caring and being cared for. This creates a perspective in
which conservation becomes part of a much larger societal picture and more embedded in
everyday life, as it highlights the socio-ethical and political nature of conservation.
By focusing on actions that maintain, continue, and repair a world that explicitly includes
our bodies, ourselves, and our environment, Fisher and Tronto (1990) do include our sur-
roundings in their definition of care. Through this, we can build a complex, life-sustaining
web of care including people and environment. We can care about, or care for our environ-
ment, but we can also feel cared for through our environment. Conservation and restoration
are ways to care about and for the built environment. With framing conservation as practice
of care, new questions are raised about how to handle risk, responsibility, and accountability,
and how we think about the ethics of care. All these questions we feel are relevant, and move
the idea of conservation forward, by pushing the boundaries of what we do, and what world
we bring about, when we practice conservation.

Note
1 This is an explorative paper and the case studies are ‘living labs’ in the project OpenHeritage (see
www​.openheritage​.eu). OpenHeritage has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon
2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement no. 776766. The main aim of the
project is to create a sustainable and inclusive governance model for adaptive heritage reuse that
is applicable under diverse circumstances, including marginalized areas. In doing so it identifies,
evaluates, and tests innovative practices of adaptive heritage reuse in Europe, with a focus on the
social innovation, community engagement and empowerment, cooperative governance, and inno-
vative financial tools.

References
Ahmed, S. (2017) Living a Feminist Live. Durham: Duke University Press.
Anderson, B. (1983) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London:
Verso.
Barnes, M. (2012) Care in Everyday Life: An Ethic of Care in Practice. Bristol: The Policy Press.
Darr, C. and Novy-Huy, R. (2020) Hof Prädikow, Germany. OpenHeritage [Online]. Available at https​
:/​/op​​enher​​itage​​.eu​/h​​erita​​ge​-la​​bs​/ho​​f​-pra​​di​kow​​-germ​​any [Accessed 14 October 2020].
Dicks, B. (2000) Heritage, Place, and Community. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.
Fisher, B. and Tronto, J.C. (1990) Toward a Feminist Theory of Caring. In E.K. Abel and M.K.
Nelson (eds.) Circles of Care: Work and Identity in Women’s Lives. Albany: State University of New
York Press.
 Heritage as a Matter of Care 203

Hall, S. (1999) Whose Heritage? Un-Settling ‘the Heritage’: Re-Imagining the Post-Nation. Third
Text 13(49): 3–13.
Hellawell, S. (2019, 14 August) Dr Marion Phillips: Sunderland’s First Female MP (1929–1931).
Women’s History Network [Online]. Available at https​:/​/wo​​mensh​​istor​​ynetw​​ork​.o​​rg​/dr​​-mari​​on​
-ph​​illip​​s​-sun​​derla​​nds​-f​​irst-​​femal​​e​-mp-​​1929-​​1931-​​b​y​-dr​​-sara​​h​-hel​​lawel​​l [Accessed 14 November
2020].
Historic England (1978) 170, 171 and 173, High Street West [Online]. Available at https​:/​/hi​​stori​​cengl​​
and​.o​​rg​.uk​​/list​​ing​/t​​he​-li​​st​/li​​st​​-en​​try​/1​​20709​2 [Accessed 14 November 2020].
Kreativorte Brandenburg (2020) Kreativorte Brandenburg: Moderne Arbeits- und Wohnprojekte vom Land
[Online]. Available at https://www.kreativorte-brandenburg.de [Accessed 14 November 2020].
Mattern, S. (2018) Maintenance and Care. Places Journal November. https://doi.org/10.22269/181120.
Meskell, L. (2015) Introduction: Globalizing Heritage. In L. Meskell (ed.) Global Heritage: A Reader.
Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Midgley, J. (2018) ‘You Were a Lifesaver’: Encountering the Potentials of Vulnerability and Self-Care
in a Community Café. Ethics and Social Welfare 12(1): 49–64.
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (2019) Indices of Deprivation 2015 and
2019. Indices of Deprivation 2019 Explorer [Online]. Available at http:​/​/dcl​​gapps​​.comm​​uniti​​es​.go​​v​
.uk/​​imd​/i​​od​​_in​​dex​.h​​tml [Accessed 14 November 2020].
Moss, M.S. (2004) Binns Family. In H.C.G. Matthew and B. Harrison (eds.) The Oxford Dictionary
of National Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/61990.
Pop Recs (2020) Facebook [Online]. Available at https://www.facebook.com/poprecsltd [Accessed 14
November 2020].
Puig de la Bellacasa, M. (2017) Matters of Care: Speculative Ethics in More than Human Worlds. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Said, E.W. (1994) Culture and Imperialism. New York: Vintage Books.
Sunderland Culture (2019) Rebel Women Project [Online]. Available at https​:/​/su​​nderl​​andcu​​lture​​.org.​​uk​
/re​​b​elwo​​men [Accessed 14 November 2020].
Till, K.E. (2012) Wounded Cities: Memory-Work and a Place-Based Ethics of Care. Political Geography
31(1): 3–14.
Tronto, J.C. (2013) Caring Democracy: Markets, Equality, and Justice. New York: New York University
Press.
Tyne and Wear Building Preservation Trust (TWBPT) (2019, 14 October) Open Heritage #hswsunderland
[Video] [Online]. Available at https​:/​/ww​​w​.you​​tube.​​com​/w​​atch?​​v​=Rmy​​FtVz4​​ZfQ​&fea​ture​
=youtu​.be [Accessed 23 November 2020].
Tyne and Wear Building Preservation Trust (TWBPT), Hulse, M. and Veldpaus, L. (2020) Highstreet
West, Sunderland Great Britain. OpenHeritage [Online]. Available at https​:/​/op​​enher​​itage​​.eu​/h​​erita​​
ge​-la​​bs​/hi​​gh​-st​​reet-​​​sunde​​rland [Accessed 6 November 2020].
Veldpaus, L. and Pereira Roders, A. (2014) Learning from a Legacy: Venice to Valletta. Change over
Time 4(2): 244–263.
Yarrow, T. (2019) How Conservation Matters: Ethnographic Explorations of Historic Building
Renovation. Journal of Material Culture 24(1): 3–21.