The head of Luxembourg's National Institute for Architectural Heritage has defended the agency against claims it hinders development, while also weighing in on the debate over whether the country protects too much – or too little – of its built environment.

In an interview with our colleagues from RTL Radio on Tuesday morning, Patrick Sanavia, the director of the National Institute for Architectural Heritage (INPA), sought to clarify the institute's role, countering the perception that it is an obstacle to development.

Sanavia firmly refuted the claim that listing a building as a historic monument makes housing projects more expensive. He explained that the INPA's purpose is to help ensure necessary work can be carried out on protected structures. For a building classified as a historic monument, the state can cover up to 50% of the restoration costs.

"Unfortunately, it has apparently been suggested that nothing could be done [with these buildings]. But that's false," Sanavia stated, noting that 1,000 restorations are currently underway with private individuals, municipalities, and companies.

He detailed the institute's supportive role, emphasising that the INPA assists owners "in word and deed" by helping prepare the required applications for the Minister of Culture's authorisation. The goal, supported by both the INPA and Ministry of Culture grants, is to facilitate projects so they do not end up being more expensive.

Currently, around 21,000 buildings are protected in Luxembourg, with 2,650 listed at the national level by the INPA and the rest protected by municipalities. Sanavia explained that the institute's procedures are legally grounded and objective, requiring them to "explain and justify to the owner the reasons" for a listing. In case of disagreement, parties can take legal action, which necessitates careful documentation of all decisions.

Too much protected heritage or not enough?

The work of the INPA sits at the centre of a public debate, with some arguing it protects too much heritage and others, too little. Sanavia addressed this dichotomy directly.

He acknowledged that the institute had previously struggled to establish a "coherent and homogeneous" system for monument protection in recent years. However, he stated that following the most recent reform, the INPA can now make formal proposals to the Ministry of Culture based on systematic, municipality-by-municipality inventories. While the core criteria for protection already existed, they now have a stronger legal foundation.

The primary criterion is "authenticity," both internal and external. According to Sanavia, a building must "bear witness to a genre, a typology, a history" to be listed. This could include structures linked to military, religious, or political history, or a "place of remembrance, linked to a character who lived there, whom we all know."

When questioned about modern developments like those in Kirchberg or Ban de Gasperich, Sanavia indicated the INPA takes a measured approach and does not rush to list new buildings. "Certainly not all of it, perhaps not much, because it's also a question of quality," he remarked, citing the former European Investment Bank building in Kirchberg as one example he finds architecturally interesting.