The Values and Impacts of a Heritagisation Process

With a brief concept of a heritagisation process in mind, we will now take a look at its potential influences and values from a more functional and pragmatic perspective. We understand that a heritagisation process could be seen as an element of urban design and cultural tourism developments (Bendix, 2009; Gillot et al., 2013), therefore, the allure of this method could see from its results. For one thing, heritagisation not only could be seen as a synonym of a heritage building process in both tangible and intangible heritage but also as a focal point to enhance the attractiveness of a place (Ashley, 2014; Turgeon, 2009, 2010 cited in Gillot et al., 2013). Additionally, in the previous chapter, a heritagisation process is also embodied with intractable competitions between different cultural capital owners, which those who control the voice may also exploit this method to enhance certain cultures. Thus, the process itself inevitably will be infiltrated with the conflict of different ideologies.

As a result, what all these notions make clear is that the impact of a heritagisation process is multidimensional and multifunctional. Not only could this process take advantage of the urban planning and cultural tourism but also it could cause-effect on different ideological groups. Therefore, for deeper investigation, the possible impacts and values of a heritagisation process could be understood in four dimensions, including economic, social, political, and cultural, which the four-dimensional framework was arranged from Hall and Arthur’s (1993) clarification of the four values of heritage.

Firstly, from an economic perspective, heritagisation may be seen as a cultural activity element or technique for the authorities to regenerate the city. Its effects could create urban competitiveness which those cultures and heritage are essential prerequisites to the national economy and the city itself. In brief, heritagisation could result in highlighting the distinctiveness of a place, increasing a place’s attractiveness and facilitating multiple developments in the city through tourism and urban designing (Ashely, 2014; Gillot et al., 2013). Many governments have also concern the possible impacts and immediate influences of this method particularly in the tourism sector, which

it could draw in predictable tourists for sightseeing (Hall & Arthur, 1993) and also twist the city’s image for a brand-new atmosphere (Binns, 2005). In addition, by considering the functional concept of a heritagisation, it may also be recognised as a process of making heritage or as an element to establish relative museums that could achieve its economic values (Di Méo, 2008; Gillot et al., 2013; Harrison, 2013).

Secondly, Ashely (2014) comprehended the social value of heritagisation as claiming that it is an ‘emotional resonance about underlying values that maintain identity, social order, collective relationships and a sense of belonging based on their links to a certain community or groups of people’ (p.40-41). This link with the original concept of which Hall and Arthur (1993) believed that the social value of heritage is a strong essential key point of maintaining a sense of place which may create or strengthen the possibility of a group identity. Due to this notion, heritagisation may be seen as a useful contribution to process ‘citizenship’ because it can ‘liberate expression, mainstream sameness, and/or strengthen individual historical consciousness’ during the process in an area (Ashley, 2014:55). Furthermore, it may also combat stigmatisation from the past through a new value, to build up the capacity of the locals, and improve the community cohesion in an area (Carnegie and Norris, 2015). However, there is a precondition of this encouraging influence which the participation of the local communities in the process is extremely important. In summary, if well-organised with appropriate planning, heritagisation could become a discursive tool and a pivotal moment for areas and cities to build up their own

‘sense of belonging’, to increase social inclusion, and to enhance their confidence through this process (Di Méo, 2008).

Thirdly, the political value of a heritagisation process focuses on the power and influences of the use of heritage from a decision-making view. Hall and Arthur (1993) defined this category on the power of the authorities who have the decision power to select which particular heritage needs to preserve or be discarded, moreover, to use this selected heritage to indoctrinate a sense of ideological beliefs. In other words, the heritagisation process may have the potential power to control others which may be seen in two directions: Geographically and ideologically. The former, claimed by Littler (2005)

and agreed through Ashley (2014), Gillot et al. (2013), and Park (2014), had been noted that the use of heritage is not only for presenting the past but is also a potential medium for governmental attention to consolidate an area. Particularly, this process may also create, redefine, or reinforce territories though heritagisation process (Di Méo, 2008:16;

Gillot et al.). The latter, argued by Ashely, the heritagisation process not only may be utilized as a tool for constructing identities (Gillot et al.), but it may also bring ‘expedient remembrance’ which could depoliticise differences and render broader issues such as racism, inequalities, ideology conflicts into a multi-cultural issue from the past. In short, it is understandable how attractive is a method for those authorities to integrate a heritagisation process in their policy-making.

Finally, the fourth value is the cultural value of a heritagisation process. From the original concept of Hall and Arthur (1993), they understood this value to elaborate the significance of protecting the multiple and rare species in the whole ecosystem and to proclaim the application of educating people through heritage. However, to consider from a more ‘cultural’ perspective may give another idea to highlight and expand the value of a heritagisation—it may enhance the beliefs and history of the area and the thought of preserving it (Davallon, 2014; Di Méo, 2008). To put another way, heritagisation could be seen as a turning point in the communities, allowing them to have an opportunity to develop their own form of the cultural capitals (Ashley, 2014), to enhance their confidences and solidarities (Park, 2014), and to moderate disputes in the process from a grassroots level. As a result, heritagisation may act as a powerful adhesive if the authorities have considered the area’s culture and identity comprehending for a planning process.

Hence, it is not surprising that heritagisation becomes a valuable method and a cultural element for any planning reason, especially in the field of urban planning and tourism. If the process is well organised, it could become a fascinating turning point for those areas and cities to build up their own ‘sense of belonging’ and to become tourist sites for multi-development attracting. That is to say, the process is seen as a discursive tool to assert cultural capital, sought recognition, and function as a point of contact where

the outside world is let in (Ashley, 2014). However, the balancing between what and how to present and turning which part of the past into a ‘heritagisation’ is still a complex issue for further research and discussing. In this research, the practice of heritagisation links with the use of a culture-led regeneration project. How do the two items work together?

The discussion will be explained in the next section.

2.2.3. Heritagisation in Culture-led Regeneration Models

In this section, we attempt to understand the possibility of integrating a heritagisation process into a culture-led regeneration due to its generalising and functional concepts which we had discussed in 2.2.1. We have understood from the previous sections that the process of heritagisation is constructing heritage to become a reference to achieve certain social goods. Moreover, heritagisation could also be seen as an instrument of cultural activities and to represent its cultural value to the public through cultural productions and cultural tourism develops. As a result, this process may be seen as a cultural element and it does have the potential key, similar values, and valid impacts driving any Evan’s (2004, 2005) cultural regeneration models.

If the above relationship is acceptable, we could then draw a simple conclusion: the practice of heritagisation could go hand in hand with a culture-led regeneration. The examples could be seen in the two models which Bianchini (1993) had defined: ‘the cultural production’ and ‘the cultural consumption’. The former focus on cultural quarters and the latter contains both flagship projects and mega-events. As many scholars have discussed these two models for decades on the advantages and disadvantages of its effect, a brief introduction of the two models has been arranged in the following table:

Table 2.2 The Two-Sided Effect on the Culture-led Regeneration models

As highly considered by urban planners, the three productions: cultural quarters, flagship projects and mega-events have been called catalysts for revitalising urban areas (Bianchini & Parkinson, 1993; Binns, 2005; Evans, 2005; García, 2004; Miles &

Paddison, 2005; Montgomery 2003; Smith, 2007, 2009). Because of the assets by adding bits of cultural activity elements, culture-led regeneration could take parts of the economic strategy—not only for creating jobs and economic transformation but also for city branding and imaging (Bianchini & Parkinson, 1993; Binns, 2005; Evans 2005;

García, 2004; Montgomery 2003; Smith, 2007). Therefore, by these means, these models could also create a knock on effects on the rest of the economy to drive other developments (Binns, 2005).

Conversely, the issue of conducting which culture-led regeneration model in a city’s cultural policy and urban regeneration process has caused a heated debate between its pros and cons. The main advantage of a cultural quarter is its possibility of becoming a mixture-used public space for local residents, supporting local creative industries, and fascinating knowledge industrial works (McManus & Caruthers, 2014; Montgomery 2003; Roodhouse, 2010; Smith, 2009). However, there are three negative issues which is the dilemma of the area’s gentrification, the taking over of buildings into offices by the companies, and the slow growth of economic factors due to the long-term financial supports on creative industries (Comunian & Mould, 2014; Montgomery, 2003;

Roodhouse, 2010; Smith, 2009).

On the other hand, flagship projects and mega-events overcome the predicament of a cultural quarter, which their main characteristics are its immediate image to the public by presses to attract investments and tourists to come (Bianchini, 1993; Binns, 2005;

Evans, 2003; García, 2004; Smith, 2009). Their multiplier influences on tourism and other predictable economic benefits with the taste of culture are the major factor that has driven these two productions to become extremely enchanting. Nevertheless, there is a discrepancy between flagship projects and mega-events. The biggest difference between the two methods is that most of the mega-events are short-lived programmes which exist in a short period. On the contrary, establishing a flagship project may be costly, yet it may

become the landmark or an image of a city.

Hence, there are indeed other risks to be noted if the process is not fully planned;

however, the three productions are all important for the use of a culture-led regeneration.

Each method has its own positive effect. A two or three-pronged consideration is feasible as well, but what is more important is to justify which method is the most needed for the cities’ regeneration process. This research discusses the effects of establishing a cultural flagship project with the combination of a heritagisation process being as a bridge to connect a culture-led regeneration. Assuredly, the cost of a cultural flagship is tremendous and not all of the cities have the money to buy such expensive cultural infrastructure for inter-urban place making. Therefore, is the profit of the flagship project lucrative? The answer is unknown. There are successful examples such as in Bilbao; however, there are also numerous failure cases that have been given the name of the ‘White elephant’, and the most well-known project is the Millennium Dome (now renamed as O2) in Greenwich, UK. As a result, further particulars will be discussed in the next section.

2.2.4. Cultural Flagships Projects

During early the 1980s, cultural flagship projects were mostly conceived as a cultural centre with the combination of cultural activities in European cities. These flagships (or in other names which has the same implications such as iconic buildings (Sklair, 2006), grand projects, star architectures, and hard branding buildings (Evans, 2003) were planned as opera houses, concert halls, art museums and galleries (Bianchini

& Parkinson, 1993; Binns 2005; Grodach, 2008). Although these culture buildings can make a profit in the term of regeneration, more it is about the planning progress which policy-makers are willing these large-scale projects to rebuild the city through large and iconic buildings. Due to the notion that urban development may contribute to the local economy, not only would the project brings to a city a brand-new look, it would also bring investors into cities for future investment and economic growth, for example, tourism (Evans, 2003, Grodach, 2008). Consequently, it is not surprising that establishing a ‘hard cultural infrastructure’ becomes a vision or a method that encompasses regeneration

(Hayes, 2009; Uysal and Özden, 2011).

While these projects are considered as a ‘powerful physical symbols of urban renaissance’ (Bianchini, 1995:16), Zukin (1995) also claimed that by inspiring a vision of the city, a cultural flagship project would also capture the art, culture and design points from the city as becoming the spirit of it. Attoe and Longa (1898) described that this catalytic process is how ‘a building initiates and sustains a chain reaction of incremental activity in the surrounding area’ (cited in Sternberg, 2002). Smyth (1994) therefore gave a definition by claiming a flagship development is a ‘development in its own right’. To be more precise, the establishment raises a number of strategic issues because of its commercial capacity for becoming a marshaling point for further investment and also as a marketing tool for an area or city which it may or may not be self-sustaining (Smyth, 1994). Bianchini et al., (1992) also agreed on the notion and emphasised the relationship with urban regeneration issues as noting this kind of flagship projects are ‘significant, high profile developments that play an influential and catalytic role in urban regeneration which can be justified if they attract other investments’. Therefore, the influence of a cultural flagship project during the urban regeneration process has been strongly recommended and played a considerable role (Bianchini, et al 1992; Smith, 2007;

Grodach, 2008).

For the reasons mentioned above, the establishment of these cultural flagship projects will have physical presences for sure, however, the symbolic function of the project is also evident. To put it briefly, Hayes (2009) classified the types of cultural flagship projects into three dimensions: geographical, positional, and creational.

“Its geographical scope extends from a local influence to an entire metropolitan area or city. Its position as an element of a conscious marketing strategy may be to communicate urban regeneration through formal promotional planning, to advertise the city as a place for others to invest or spend. It can create demand for inward investment, should deliver the required benefits to attract investment and consumption and

may be a fundamental tool to stimulate the local economy.” (p.91-92)

The beneficial results are predictable as cities paid attention to the commercial impacts and the long-term effects that demonstrated the value of the cultural flagship project. Discussed by several scholars, they believed that cultural flagship projects could play as catalysts for plenty of benefits. Viewed in this light, the creation of cultural flagships certainly brought a new icon in a city and that it could become a brand new fantastic site for tourist attention and the tourism industry (Grodach 2008; Smith 2009).

The project could also boost localised commercial activities and sustain environmental areas if well-planned (Grodach, 2008; Smith, 2009; Sternberg, 2002). In these circumstances, creativity provides a second perspective which not only cities can invest in cultural flagship projects in order to fascinate the most creatively talented people, but also the use of this term to establish ‘visional’ iconic buildings and locations (Hayes, 2009). Because of this concept, more importantly, it is that planners believe these iconic buildings can re-image a cities’ impression (Evans, 2003; Grodach 2008; Hayes, 2009).

To discuss a bit further, Bowen-Jones and Entwistle (2002:189) even noted that these flagships are ‘likely to be relatively more effective if their selection takes into account local perceptions and attitudes, and if the species have links for the protection of cultural symbols and, ultimately, their cultural identity’. Nevertheless, the value is not only for investment or outsiders but the influence of a well-planned cultural flagship could also be seen as a symbol for emerging engagement and participation from the local residents.

It is no doubt that cultural flagship projects have those possibilities of the advantages and effectiveness of urban regeneration; however, the disadvantages of establishing it has also been criticised by the tremendous cost with unforeseen matters (Evans, 2003). Highly rated financial reasons are probably the main factor while not all cities have enough estimation for the gigantic expenditure and for higher operating costs. These projects might have failed because they were largely inappropriate and unsuitable for the local community and that the notion of engaging with residents was often tokenistic (Grodach, 2008; Jones, 2000 cited in Smith, 2009). This link to the idea of whether the locals have the sense of belonging to the cultural flagship project, or else it would be a loss of local

identity (Hayes, 2009; Miles, 2005; Smith, 2009). Moreover, some cultural flagship projects would invite renowned architects to design the shape in the view of his or hers repute which might also cause a series copy, homogenisation, and disconnected with local cultures (Evans, 2003). Some scholars agreed and argued that the ‘economic and physical revitalisation comes only at the cost of social exclusion and displacement’ (Grodach, 2008) and that the building is ‘an icon rather than the cultural building as part of an urban complex’ (Farrell, 2000:32 cited in Evans, 2003:436). Therefore, there are only a few cities that have achieved their quest for global city status through spectacular cultural flagship projects.

As a result, Smith (2007) and others proposed that it is of an almighty importance of

‘long-term legacy planning’ both before and after the cultural flagship project. This concept has now been built into the process to prevent the waste of cost and to reduce political debate and conflicting pressures on the project. Yet, what needs to be emphasized is that these cultural flagship projects must connect to the region. For example, history, values or culture because the project could be typified by its ‘celebratory’ purpose that could connect a person or activity with a place or a moment in time (Hayes, 2009). Hence, as willing cultural flagship projects become a magnet to draw attention both inside and outside for the city regeneration, to enhance the meaning to the community is not only a way to interosculate the attractions for residents but also to become selling points for cultural tourists and investors.

2.3. Evaluating Criterion for Cultural Flagships

Will it be worth establishing a cultural flagship on account of the extremely high expenditure of the construction costs? Also, how can we analyse the process to clarify if it is valuable or not? To be honest, the evaluation of cultural flagship projects is rather difficult as the DCMS defined that the value of culture is hard to measure the outcomes and benefits. As Hayes (2009) mentioned, he argued that the value of cultural flagship could be ‘highly contested depending on the perspective of the stakeholder and judgments about the contribution to cultural or regeneration goals’ (p.97). While early studies debate

on whether the value of the project could change over time, issues about how to evaluate a cultural flagship become fully important.

As a result, Hayes (2009) complied a cultural flagship design rational evaluation criterion with Smyth’s (1994) ‘The planning perspective’, and Aitcheson and Evans’s (2003) ‘Community-led cultural regeneration projects’ (See Table 2.3 on p.10). He classified those two arguments into four major spheres that are the ‘Vision’, the ‘Design’,

As a result, Hayes (2009) complied a cultural flagship design rational evaluation criterion with Smyth’s (1994) ‘The planning perspective’, and Aitcheson and Evans’s (2003) ‘Community-led cultural regeneration projects’ (See Table 2.3 on p.10). He classified those two arguments into four major spheres that are the ‘Vision’, the ‘Design’,