The Canadian Institute of Planners has defined planning as the scientific, aesthetic, and orderly disposition of land, facilities, and services, with a view to securing the physical, economic, and social efficiency and the health and well-being of urban and rural communities. That's our definition in which we encompass our own particular professional practice, and that's the framework upon which we view the idea of what urban conservation might be.
When we look at urban conservation within the definition of a planning practice, we consider that part of the mandate of our planning profession is to understand, analyze, and inform the decision-making and good policy development of the usage of these urban land resources, be they environmental, cultural, economic and so on, to their best and most equitable effect.
If we were to define urban conservation in such way as to give our own definition of it from our own planning practice, we would say it speaks to the idea of conserving, protecting, enhancing, and in some cases creating special places of note and character within the urban setting, for the ongoing use, enjoyment, and utility of current and future generations, without compromising unnecessarily the nature of the place itself.
Conservation, in our view, does not imply preservation. Rather, conservation implies a stewardship and a regulation of a range of uses and potential activities so as to maximize that economic, environmental, and net social value. This involves balancing and at times reconciling competing interests, and finding opportunities to combine solutions that maximize that benefit of the public interest.
If I could wrap it all up in one final encompassment, we believe urban conservation is all about developing cultural and environmental landscapes that operate to the maximum benefit, and we believe urban conservation truly occupies a three-pillar approach to urban space. It requires a multidisciplinary perspective from a number of different groups.