How complete is our understanding?
I have recently been in conversation with a colleague about gaining a greater understanding about the nature of intangible heritage. He made the point that mining communities had little or nothing in common with the factory and mill workers, so retelling these histories is challenging except by example.
Is intangible heritage important?
As an alternative, could we abstract our understanding? To find insights, we can abstract the experiences of a range of industrial heritage areas and sites, by comparing the working day and week, holidays, and welfare with today. Or hear very personal histories told by relatives of past generations? This intangible heritage is important to consider in the light of redevelopment proposals. Indeed, how do we prioritise economic considerations? This often leads to choices such as demolition before redevelopment. Local opposition to this approach is understandable, which is a widespread problem. Peter Bullen and Peter Love in ‘A New Future for the Past’ tell us that diverse stakeholder and community priorities are ineffectively and unsuccessfully delivered.
Other authors have discussed these matters too. Federico Dell’Anna, in ‘What Advantages Do Adaptive Industrial Heritage Reuse Processes Provide? An Econometric Model for Estimating the Impact on the Surrounding Residential Housing Market’ and Sunny Han and Huimin Zhang, in ‘Progress and Prospects in Industrial Heritage Reconstruction and Reuse Research during the Past Five Years: Review and Outlook’, provide further insights.
Case studies
There are numerous case studies about how this connection is repeatedly lost. A deep delve into each reveals most social outcomes are specific to case study contexts. Those case study outcomes demonstrate that the loss of physical fabric and spaces is the result of a lack of emphasis on intangible heritage, which leads to missed opportunities. For example, local intangible heritage connections, such as traditional craftsmanship and manufacturing processes, are often overlooked. Theodora Chatzi Rodopoulou talks about this in her thesis, ‘Control Shift’.
Contextual meaning
The result of ignoring histories is that tangible heritage elements, including buildings, installations, machinery, objects, and archival material, are relegated to isolated art installations. This treatment strips it of its contextual meaning. As explained by Theodora, the consequence is that economic-led approaches result in heritage “commodification and historic eclecticism” and the loss of cultural significance and community connections to industrial heritage sites in ‘Heritage-Led Regeneration in the UK. Preserving Historic Values or Masking Commodification? A Reflection on the Case of King’s Cross, London’.
Two-way loss
Thus, community and heritage losses are two-way processes. A disconnect is experienced by local communities that hold memories of intangible heritage, such as production processes, know-how, and social aspects. That disconnect affects a sense of place acutely, which is as crucial to achieving meaningful place-making as design.
Can we reverse this trend and turn it into a positive?
No Responses