Heritage and Urban Identity

2.2.3.1. Complexity of the ‘Heritage’ Concept

Identity and heritage are commonly but often imprecisely used terms. For the research that deals with identity of urban environment in the context of its change, it is particularly important to understand the ways these “slippery and ambiguous yet dynamically important concepts” (Graham & Howard, 2008: 1) build connections between each other.

Martínez argued that the modern concept of heritage could be considered as a product of European culture, although not all cultures understand it the same way (Martínez, 2008).

Thus, the issue that makes the whole concept rather complicated is the inconsistency in determining values recognized as heritage, as a question of temporal, cultural and civilizational factors. World Heritage Convention (UNESCO, 1972) established general classification of heritage back in the 1970-es, involving cultural and natural categories, as well as a subcategory of cultural landscape that encompasses elements of both natural and cultural heritage. As a legacy in the form of a monument, group of buildings, or site of historical, aesthetic, archaeological, scientific, ethnological or anthropological value, cultural heritage is often characterized by its tangible and intangible components. These two components are referring both to its physical characteristics and various layers of cultural values in it, and are thus interlinked and inseparable. Through these components, heritage is certainly subjectively valued, but its main role is to sustain a sphere of public interest and public good (Čamprag, 2010). Finally, although the term heritage remains difficult to define accurately (Graham &

Howard, 2008; Harvey, 2008; McDowell, 2008), it could be grasped as an essentially collective and public notion that mostly involves values inherited from past generations, on which society at present is set upon and benefits from.

In the research framework that deals with distinct environmental character of cities, built heritage generally represents an irreplaceable cultural asset, finite and non-renewable source created by the past generations, which consists of individual or group of buildings, structures, monuments or remains (Jokilehto, 2005: 25-26). Associated with architectural, cultural, spiritual, social or historical developments, such assets can support recognisability, uniqueness, and local context of contemporary cities. Referring to the Draft Medium Term Plan by UNESCO (1989), cultural heritage and its role in identity building of a place are described as follows: “the cultural heritage may be defined as the entire corpus of material signs – either artistic or symbolic – handed on by the past to each culture and, therefore, to the whole of humankind. As a constituent part of the affirmation and enrichment of cultural identities, as a legacy belonging

46

to all humankind, the cultural heritage gives each particular place its recognizable features and is the storehouse of human experience. The preservation and the presentation of the cultural heritage are therefore a corner stone of any cultural policy” (UNESCO, 1989: 57). As such, heritage is nowadays certainly considered as a key economic resource and a vital element in the construction of collective and place identities (Martínez, 2008; Rossi, 1973). However, on the one side subjected to the rules of the market and the cultural industry, superficial exploitation of heritage can lead to its irreversible transformations and depreciation of its values (Martínez, 2008: 262). On the other side, questioning authenticity of the heritage concept and its selective nature are issues that marked late 20^th century (Martínez, 2008). Graham and Howard argued that “the contents, interpretations, and representations of the heritage resource are selected according to the demands of the present and, in turn, bequeathed to an imagined future” (Graham & Howard, 2008: 2). As a consequence of a present-centred perspective through whole ‘series of lenses’, heritage was redefined as created, with rather ascribed than with intrinsic worth (Graham & Howard, 2008: 2). Apprehending heritage as an agglomeration of values that are created, shaped and managed by in response to the demands of societies in the present (Graham & Howard, 2008; McDowell, 2008; Daugbjerg & Fibiger, 2011) implies on the other side that “the creation of any heritage actively or potentially disinherits or excludes those who do not subscribe to, or are embraced within, the terms of meaning attending that heritage”

(Graham & Howard, 2008: 3).

In accordance to all the above-mentioned, as Littler and Naidoo²⁶ noticed (Graham &

Howard, 2008: 1), definition of heritage certainly ‘morphed’ significantly over time. Such new understandings even questioned the previously established standpoints by UNESCO. The recent context of deliberation of heritage, developed by Schröder-Esch, involves nine hypotheses that are in accordance with the idea of heritage as a process of selection and ascribing importance (Schröder-Esch, 2006a: 8-12). Their main issues are concerning the notion becoming ever more popular, but the meaning less and less clear. In addition, these hypotheses are also supporting the standpoint that heritage doesn’t exist, but is made in the present with a specific purpose. The new concept apprehends all heritages as exclusively cultural and intangible, as well as rather selective than all-embracing; however not excluding its uncomfortable and unpleasant features. In addition, heritage is not solely a cultural, but potentially an important economic resource. Finally, these hypotheses that represent heritage as a certain signification, based on various variable and often questionable criteria, are practically illustrating the scope of complexity in contemporary understanding of this term, as well as its role in the constructions of urban identity.

26 Littler, J. & Naidoo, R. (2004) White Past, Multicultural Present: Heritage and National Stories, History, Nationhood and the Question of Britain (Brocklehurst, H. & Philips, R., eds.), Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan: 330-341.

2.2.3.2. Heritage Preservation - Role and Controversies

With its roots in the 19^th century, when a small group of British enthusiasts showed rising interest for archaeological and historical studies, as well as for interpretations of historical artefacts, heritage preservation is a rather recent activity (Ashworth & Larkham, 1994). Since those early days, the approach to preservation went through serious transformations. However, the major changes occurred in the mid 20^th century in almost all European cities, which at first concerned widening of preserved areas and promoting conservation rather than restoration (Martínez, 2008), with all the implications of that shift in land use management. The change from object to area perspective simultaneously put the interest for preserving a single monument in a wider physical context, sometimes reaching up to extensive conservation areas, and even to whole villages and towns. Further need for new methods in preservation planning outside the traditional scientific field came into the focus after the role of culture and heritage recently became an increasingly important asset in economic policies. Therefore, carefully planned and sustainable approach to management and preservation of these valuable urban resources became a necessity. The basic concept of heritage conservation nowadays refers to the protection of built and cultural heritage from damages, deterioration and destruction, since heritage is grasped as a non-renewable asset (Nasser, 2003). In addition, sustainable conservation denotes such an approach that preserves the best of heritage, affecting a rational balance between conservation and change, but without imposing unsustainable costs (Delafons, 1997: 177).

Due to its considerable evolution from the basic principles of ‘saving old buildings’ to more complex ones, historic preservation increasingly became uniquely effective for achieving local meaning regarding overall place identity and city’s physiognomy, as well as its economic development (Rypkema, 1999; Martínez, 2008). However, the preservation is increasingly considered ‘critical’ when deciding what to preserve and how (Gražulevičiūtė, 2006) – a discussion which initiated many controversies. The main issue concerns the finite nature of built heritage, not being eternal in its original state, and instead, conservation processes tend to replace its components and materials that will eventually get partially or completely renewed over time. Additionally, traditional building skills and techniques, developed through centuries on the empirical bases as manual or industrial know-how and artistic expression, are changing and tend to eventually disappear (Will, 2009). These experiences being continually passed-on imply that once out-dated or lost building tradition is actually lost forever, as it cannot be retrieved by superficial copying of its historical achievements. Finally, the intangible side of heritage, implying memories, former customs, local tradition – even destroyed urban fabric – came out to be a convenient medium for manipulation, as often subjected to misuse, ranging from the selection of suitable and non-suitable heritage for preservation, to even some negative

48

examples of manipulation in the production of built heritage (Huxtable, 1997; Roost, 2000). In this sense, historical physical configuration of modern cities could finally be questioned, as created, developed and transformed by someone for some purpose, with the whole range of selection criteria regarding what was selected as ‘appropriate’ built heritage to be preserved from the past, which finally makes its effects on the present and the future (Gospodini, 2002;

Kelleher, 2004; Graham & Howard, 2008).

Regarding all the contexts above, Ashworth (1998: 267-268) claimed that built heritage of European cities has been ‘filtered’ over time both by eradification and museumification processes, resulting in an urban landscape reduced in its original meanings; “(…) by

‘eradification’, is meant the destruction or disappearance of artefacts, spaces, buildings and elements that has occurred either involuntarily (e.g. due to war or other natural disasters) or voluntarily (e.g. due to modernisation, change of political regime, change of cultural paradigm).

By ‘museumification’ is meant the shift in the function (and in some cases, in the form as well) of artefacts, spaces, buildings and elements that has occurred on purpose – in order to transform the meaning of the conserved schemata or/and use the conserved schemata as tourist/economic resources” (Gospodini, 2002: 23-24). Finally, in almost all European cities, according to Gospodini (2002), it is also possible to provide evidencesthat through means of such manipulation processes, built heritage has been produced or selected by such criteria for national identities to be supported. The main criticism of such an approach implies that “(…) urban conservation practices have not generated distinctive urban landscapes, but they rather tend to generate morphologically standardized landscapes that do not contribute in the creation of place identities” (Gospodini, 2002: 25). The standpoints previously described are providing a different perspective on the uncontested significance of urban heritage preservation, as well as on correctness of its approaches regarding the process of identity building of an urban environment. In addition, there are some more extreme examples that are counteracting and threatening original meanings of urban heritage, like ‘Disneyfication’ of cities, which implies the misuse of historical architectural interpretation. According to Roost (2000), such phenomenon originates from the big projects of the entertainment industry, expanding from American cities.

In such enterprises, certain coulisse of ‘European city’ is often used in order to construct motives and settings that would attract tourists (Roost, 2000: 141-156).

To conclude, although there seem to be a general consensus supporting the protection of built cultural heritage globally, conservation policies and practices often differ substantially from place to place. As already mentioned, heritage is nowadays often grasped as an asset, which functions by mobilizing selected and desired pasts and histories in the service of present-day agendas and interests (Daugbjerg & Fibiger, 2011). Aspects which cannot be marketed easily, or have little or no relevance for political identity building, are usually excluded both from cultural reality and conservation policy. On the other side, as tourism became the most

prominent economic sector in which heritage is exploited as a resource, the phenomenon of disregarding the ‘real’ heritage is further supported by a fictionalisation of the past through tourism-related use of culture. This implies phenomena such as presenting the visitors only the picture they expect to see (Ulbricht & Schröder-Esch, 2006), which sometimes even involves introduction of ‘fake’ elements in the heritage milieu of the city (Huxtable, 1997; Roost, 2000).

Mixing ‘fake’ with ‘real’ components within an umbrella of urban heritage is another threat that not only prevents clear perception of historical values of an urban environment, but is also seriously discrediting both importance and integrity of historic preservation.

2.2.3.3. Built Heritage, Urban Identity and Development

Due to the rapid socio-economic changes and highly competitive global climate, most of the cities certainly experienced the pressure of massive developments and redevelopments. On the other side, these changes created many problems for existing environments, as new developments directly affected old fabric and socio-economic structures of cities. Urban governance around the world is therefore facing a range of new challenges nowadays, not only to create sufficiently attractive urban conditions for new investments, but also to simultaneously sustain distinctive urban physiognomy (Gospodini, 2002) through development and improvement of city’s image, which also implies preservation and enhancement of its built heritage. In this sense, the relationship between heritage and development generally refers either to the potential of heritage to serve as an important regional development asset, or to the either positive or harmful effects of development schemes on the heritage in question (Schröder-Esch, 2006b: 191-192). Regardless of the viewpoint, recognizable and continuous urban identity in the frames of these processes plays an indicative role of a development that is carried out in a sustainable manner.

The potential of any particular heritage to serve as a development asset ranges from its aesthetic, cultural, educational, political and economic values. Although balancing these components is one of the most difficult challenges for conservation decisions, they are certainly at the same time the main potential of heritage for initiating and/or taking part in various urban developments. However, according to the UK’s Department for Culture, Media and Sport (The Costs and Benefits of UK World Heritage Site Status, 2007: 13), heritage value-typology is very complex, encompassing both the use values of these assets (intrinsic and instrumental value)

50

and those not directly in use (bequest value and existence/option value).²⁷ The direct use-benefits of heritage are secured by those using the assets, such as tourists for example, while the indirect or non-use benefit addresses the community at large (The Costs and Benefits of UK World Heritage Site Status, 2007: 5-13). Certainly the most controversial component involves economic issue of heritage preservation, as until recently it used to be understood as a barrier to further economic development (Scheffler et al., 2009: 10). Nowadays, however, culture and cultural values, such as traditional architecture, unique streetscapes and historic sites, have been recognized not only as an asset for sustaining local identity, but as an important economic resource (Ebbe, 2009; Rypkema, 2008; Martínez, 2008).

The most important sector of economy using heritage as a resource nowadays is certainly the tourism industry, especially ‘cultural’ or ‘heritage tourism’ (Porter, 2008). History and past in the meanwhile became a convenient resource base amenity, not only for tourism, but also for a wide range of other high-order economic activities and development strategies (Ashworth & Larkham, 1994; Rypkema, 2001). They are all using heritage as an important so-called ‘soft factor’ in the framework of intercity competition, especially in strategies for promoting development of cities, attracting enterprises, skilled working force, inhabitants and tourists, as well as a tool for branding and marketing (Scheffler et al, 2009; Ebbe, 2009; Rypkema, 2001).

Contemporary historic preservation therefore significantly changed and adapted, evolving from simple preservation of heritage to a serious activity with a variety of diverse and long-term goals. According to Rypkema (1999: 3), sustainable historic preservation nowadays needs to ensure identification and protection of major landmarks and monuments, with the respect of vernacular qualities and local significance, characters of the ensembles, adaptive reuse and authenticity. As such, preservation is playing an ever more significant role both in consumption or production oriented development strategies.²⁸ As Nyström (1999) argues, in terms of consumption strategies, built heritage creates attraction to a city, while production-oriented strategies are taking heritage as important element for creating a milieu of creativity and innovation. With such understandings, economic development strategy based on historic preservation could offer a range of measurable benefits, such as jobs and household income, job training, city centre revitalization, heritage tourism, property values, and small business incubation (Rypkema, 1999; 2001; 2008; Scheffler et al., 2009; Gražulevičiūtė, 2006). Thus, contemporary view on historic preservation considerably involves sustainable urban economic and social development (Nyström, 1999).

27 According to the diagram of use and non-use values of heritage, The Costs and Benefits of UK World Heritage Site Status, A Literature Review for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Prince Waterhouse Coopers, June 2007, p. 13

28 It is possible to define two types of cultural and development strategies: production strategy, which aims at promoting cultural products that can be consumed outside the actual region, and consumption strategy, restricting the consumption to the production region. (Nyström, 1999)

A reverse look on the effects, which development schemes are making on heritage itself, reveals that after the evolution of ‘urban sustainability’, urban planners, developers and policy makers are focused in particular on creating balance between development and heritage conservation for the coming times. As some cities are going through the process of expansive economy, the new task of planning here is to prevent negative impacts on the urban built heritage, caused by the new demands for construction and expansion. In the cases when the cities are characterized by deindustrialization and restructuring of the public sector, the task is to find new uses for buildings with low potential economic value (Nyström, 1999: 431). In both of the cases, it is necessary to adopt such strategies, which achieve a harmonious balance between the aims of preserving and protecting heritage and of generating economic and social development (Schröder-Esch, 2006b: 191-192).

Diagram 2.2.

Contribution of physical cultural heritage to urban identity and development, by URBACT²⁹

© URBACT II. Source: Scheffler, Kulikauskas & Barreiro, 2009: 10

Built heritage preservation certainly holds a significant potential to initiate development and thus create profit, in most of the cases bringing back the necessary funds for its sustention.

However, traditional reasons for preservation, such as historical and aesthetics, were recently forced to take broader perspectives into consideration, such as social and economical ones, which currently make heritage management and maintenance much more complex than ever

29 URBACT is a European exchange and learning programme promoting sustainable urban development, as a part of Europe’s cohesion policy (its goal is to help implement the Lisbon-Gothenburg Strategy, which prioritizes competitiveness, growth and employment. (Source: http://urbact.eu 2012-11-14)

52

before. Identity of an urban environment in its broadest meanings plays the role of an important mediator between all the interconnected aspects between heritage and development. The starting point for such a relation is in the role of heritage in the frames of sustainable development, where it needs to provide environmental, cultural and economic sustainability through the preservation process itself (Gražulevičiūtė, 2006). To make use of the potential of physical cultural heritage to contribute to the preservation and improvement of urban identity on one side, and to support urban development on the other (diagram 2.2), heritage preservation nowadays has to be considered not only as means for preserving physical fabric and sustaining cultural values, but as an incentive for enhancing cultural diversity, building up and maintaining the local identity of the place, and ensuring a sustainable urban development³⁰ (Scheffler, et al, 2009; Gražulevičiūtė, 2006).

30 There are many ways to grasp sustainable development; however, widely accepted definition was provided by the World Commission on Environment and Development, indicating such a development that “meets the needs of the present, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987). Urban sustainability primarily refers to the quality of life in a community, and is characterized by multiple dimensions; in the first place physical, environmental, socio-cultural and economic ones (Tavakoli, 2010), also as by ecological, legal, political and psychological dimensions (Bossel, 1999). Integrating all these criteria in a sustainable manner ensures proper establishment of future strategy and policy development, in order to create more liveable environment and to secure it for the future (Tavakoli, 2010: 4).

CHAPTER 03.