文化旗艦場館與都市再生之研究－以貝爾法斯特•鐵達尼號紀念館為例

全文

(1)國立臺灣師範大學國際與社會科學學院歐洲文化與觀光研究所碩士論文 Graduate Institute of European Cultures and Tourism. National Taiwan Normal University College of International Studies and Social Sciences. Master thesis. 文化旗艦場館與都市再生之研究－以貝爾法斯特˙鐵達尼號紀念館為例 Cultural Flagship and Urban Regeneration: A Case Study of Titanic Belfast. 梁郁 Liang, Yu. 指導教授﹕劉以德博士 Dr. Liu, Yi-De 中華民國一○六年十一月 November 2017.

(2) Acknowledgements For the accomplishment of this thesis, I would like to expand my gratitude for the great support and generosity offered by the followings (in alphabet order): Foremost, this thesis would not have been possible without the guidance of my dearest supervisor Prof. Yi-De Liu. Thanks for supporting, encouraging, and allowing me to put myself out there. Without your countenance, I may not have the bravery to follow my heart and make my dream come true. Beside my supervisor, this thesis is greatly enhanced by the gracious advice of my thesis committee: Dr. Chang Bin Lee and Dr. Jerry C. Y. Liu. Their insightful comments, challenging questions, and invaluable advice opened my vision and enhanced the quality of this research. During my fieldwork in Belfast, I would like to express my sincere thanks to Ms. Catherine Anne Davies (President of the Linen Hall Library, Belfast), Prof. Danny Crookes (Professor at Queen’s University Belfast), Prof. Jack F. Smith (Emeritus Professor of Queen’s University Belfast), Prof. Ming Ji (Professor at Queen’s University Belfast), Mr. Peter Curran (Trade Manager of the Asia Pacific in Invest Northern Ireland), Ms. Sarah Hamilton-Cardy (PR & Communications Executive at Titanic Belfast), Ms. Seaneen McGrady (Regional Development Officer in Tourism Northern Ireland), Ms. Sharon Kelly (Visual Artist based in Belfast), and Ms.. Vicki Chiu (Director in Invest Northern Ireland) for help with this research. I am also grateful for the support from my friends in Belfast: Aidan Campbell and Aofia Kelly McCann. My gratitude also goes to Dr. Chia-Ling Lai, Dr. Dinu Luca, Dr. Hsueh-I Chen, Ms. Linda Hsieh, and Prof. Shou-Cheng Lai for their encouragement in GIECT. I also appreciate the support of my friends and classmates: Betty, Célia, Christine, Eileen, Heather, Hedy, Joan, Lise, Léonie, Lori, Nigel, Rebecca, Solange, Tammy, Vivian and many more. Last but not least, I am indebted to my family (Amy, Janet, Jerry and my grandparents) for giving me the greatest support, tolerant, and courage during my academic life. This research is dedicated to them. I thank you all very much! Yu LIANG (Katy) b.

(3) Dinu. c.

(4) Abstract This research aims at discussing how cultural flagships in cities can be used as a method for a cultural-led regeneration, especially in a city which still has many ideological contradictions. An effective cultural flagship project not only may bring multi-level benefits to an area but also may twist the image of the place. However, the key factor of this method to achieve success is to win the local’s supports. As a result, the selection of ‘which culture’ to be promoted is a considerable issue. In the case of Belfast, even though the city has benefited from the cultural infrastructure, the choice of promoting the Titanic culture and the Titanic Belfast have both been criticised by many scholars and residents. A part of them do not identify the selection of a ‘Sunken Titanic culture’ as their new image or representation of Belfast. Therefore, this research starts with a brief concept of a culture-led regeneration. Secondly, the author will discuss the notion and the use of a heritagisation which is the bridge to connect a cultural flagship and a culture-led regeneration process. In other words, this study will probe the appropriation and contradiction of using the heritagised Titanic Culture in four dimensions, including the economic value, the social value, the political value, and the cultural value. Finally, by integrating the theories from Gordach (2010) and Hayes (2009) to evaluate a criterion, this research will examine the five factors of a beneficial cultural flagship with the case of the Titanic Belfast: the vision, the design, the visitor attractiveness, the location and community fit, and the planning process. Hence, the methodology of this study has a mixed incorporating qualitative point of interviews and secondary sources with different perspectives and approaches. A case study with the above elements of Belfast has been conducted in this study to investigate the reliabilities of the above theories. During the study, 187 opinions are divided among residents, stakeholders, and outsiders on their viewpoint of the application of the Titanic culture and the Titanic Belfast itself. The results from this study show that the establishment of the Titanic Belfast was unavoidable in Belfast’s urban planning. The cultural flagship did achieve its economic target to attract outsiders and bring several benefits to Belfast. However, people are still hesitated in selecting the Titanic for Belfast’s new image. Keywords: Cultural Flagship, Urban Regeneration, Heritagisation, Titanic, Belfast. i.

(5) ii.

(6) Table of Contents 碩士學位論文通過簽表 ............................................................................................... a Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................... b 中文謝誌 ...................................................................................................................... c Abstract ......................................................................................................................... i 中文摘要 ...................................................................................................................... ii Table of Contents ......................................................................................................... iii List of Figures .............................................................................................................. vi List of Tables .............................................................................................................. vii 1. 2. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Research Background.................................................................................... 1. 1.2. Research Motivation ..................................................................................... 2. 1.3. Research Aim and Objectives ........................................................................ 3. 1.4. Research Case ............................................................................................... 4. 1.5. Chapter Outline and Study Process................................................................ 8. Literature Review ................................................................................................... 9 2.1. Culture and Urban Regeneration ................................................................. 10 2.1.1 The Role of Culture in Regeneration .................................................... 10 2.1.2 Culture-led Regeneration...................................................................... 12. 2.2. Heritagisation and Culture-led Regeneration ............................................... 14 2.2.1 Heritagisation ....................................................................................... 14 2.2.2 The Values and Impacts of a Heritagisation Process.............................. 19 2.2.3 Heritagisation with Culture-led Regeneration Models........................... 22 2.2.4 Cultural Flagships Projects ................................................................... 25. 2.3. Evaluating Criterion for Cultural Flagships ................................................. 28. iii.

(7) 2.4 3. Research Rationale ...................................................................................... 42. Methodology ........................................................................................................ 48 3.1. Research Design ......................................................................................... 48. 3.2. Data Collection ........................................................................................... 49. 3.3. Validity and Reliability ............................................................................... 59 3.3.1 Construct Validity................................................................................. 59 3.3.2 Internal Validity.................................................................................... 60 3.3.3 External Validity................................................................................... 61 3.3.4 Reliability ............................................................................................ 61. 4. Research Finding ................................................................................................. 62 4.1. The Transformation of Belfast ..................................................................... 62 4.1.1 The Past Dilemmas and Urban Planning ............................................... 62 4.1.2 Cultural Regeneration in Belfast ........................................................... 69 4.1.3 A Culture-led regeneration Target Planning: Building A Cultural Flagship ..... 75. 4.2. The Heritagisation of the Titanic Culture ..................................................... 80 4.2.1 The History Relationship Between the Titanic and Belfast .................... 81 4.2.2 Heritagising the Titanic for Regeneration Use ...................................... 83 4.2.3 The Four Values and Impacts of Titanic’s Heritagisation for Urban Regeneration ........................................................................................ 85 4.2.3.1 The Economic Values and Impacts of the Titanic ......................... 85 4.2.3.2 The Social Values and Impacts of the Titanic ............................... 87 4.2.3.3 The Political Values and Impacts of the Titanic............................ 89 4.2.3.4 The Cultural Values and Impacts of the Titanic ............................ 92 4.2.4 Section Summary ................................................................................. 94. 4.3. Evaluating the Titanic Belfast ..................................................................... 97 4.3.1 Vision................................................................................................... 97 iv.

(8) 4.3.2 Design ................................................................................................ 104 4.3.3 Visitor-Attractiveness ......................................................................... 110 4.3.4 Location and Community Fit .............................................................. 117 4.3.5 Planning Process ................................................................................ 125 4.3.6 Section Summary ............................................................................... 128 Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 131. 5. 5.1. Theory Contribution .................................................................................. 133. 5.2. Pragmatic Contribution ............................................................................. 138. 5.3. Limitation ................................................................................................. 140. 5.4. An Advice for Further Studies ................................................................... 141. References ......................................................................................................... 142. 6. Appendixes ............................................................................................................... 157 I.. Interactive Travel Forums with Reviews Ranking List_The Titanic Belfast ... 157. II.. Notification of the Restriction for any Interviewing in the TQ ....................... 162. v.

(9) List of Figures Figure 1.1 The Study Process of This Research.…………………………………...….8 Figure 2.1 The Evaluation Criterion of a Cultural Flagship……………………….….…15 Figure 3.1 The Data Collection Triangulation of This Research………………….…60 Figure 4.1 The Map of Belfast’s Peace Line Process………….………………..….…62 Figure 4.2 The Visitor Perspectives of the Vision of the Titanic Belfast…..………...…100 Figure 4.3 The Seven Stages of the Design of the Titanic Belfast………………….…105 Figure 4.4 The Draft Exterior Design of the Titanic Belfast….…………………….…105 Figure 4.5 The Logo of the White Star Line……………………………………….…106 Figure 4.6 The Four Hulls, One Crystal…………………….……………………...107 Figure 4.7 The Faceted Plates……………………………………..……………….107 Figure 4.8 The Galleries Inside the Titanic Belfast………………….……………..113 Figure 4.9 The Walking Minutes from Belfast City Centre…………….…………119 Figure 4.10 The Local Perspectives of the Community Fit of the Titanic Belfast…121 Figure 5.1 The Theory Framework for this Research………………………………….134. vi.

(10) List of Tables Table 2.1 The Evolution of Heritagisation……………………….………………..…15 Table 2.2 The Two-Sided Effect on the Culture-led Regeneration models………….…23 Table 2.3 The Cultural Flagship Evaluation Criterion…………………………………30 Table 2.4 The Criterion of the Cultural Flagship’s ‘Vision’……………………………32 Table 2.5 The Criterion of the Cultural Flagship’s ‘Design’……………………..….…35 Table 2.6 The Criterion of the Cultural Flagship’s ‘Visitor-Attractiveness’……………37 Table 2.7 The Criterion of the Cultural Flagship’s ‘Location and Community Fit’…….40 Table 2.8 The Criterion of the Cultural Flagship’s ‘Planning Process’……………...…42 Table 2.9 The Exploration of the First Research Objective………………..…………43 Table 2.10 The Exploration of the Second Research Objective…………..………..…48 Table 3.1 The Methodology Design of This Research……………………….……….49 Table 3.2 The List of Resident Interviewees in Belfast……………..………..………55 Table 3.3 The Interview Questions for Local Residents in Belfast…………….…..…56 Table 3.4 The List of Working Staff Interviewees in the Titanic Belfast……….…..…57 Table 3.5 The Interview Questions for Working Staffs in the Titanic Belfast……….…57 Table 3.6 The Interview Questions for Cultural Planners in Belfast……………….…58 Table 4.1 A Brief Regional Regeneration Planning List in Belfast from 1989-2016……………...68 Table 4.2 A Brief List of the Cultural Framework and Tourism Strategy Planning in Belfast ………..71 Table 4.3 The Six Objectives of the Titanic Belfast’s Vision………………………....…98 Table 4.4 A Short Introduction of the Floors Inside the Titanic Belfast………..……112 Table 4.5 Visitors Responds to Their Visiting Opinions……………..……..…….…...115 Table 4.6 Arguments among residents who have visited the Titanic Belfast……….122. vii.

(11) 1. Introduction 1.1. Research Background Culture-led regeneration as a technique for urban regeneration is one of the popular campaigns during the recent years. Several scholars convinced that ‘culture(s)’ could seem as an effective method to drive multidimensional urban developments. These various cultures may engender an exposure opportunity for the city to highlight its unique and create different levels of attraction. In other words, the benefaction of a culture-led regeneration may emerge a knock-on effect on the cities’ development and twist the city’s image for a brand-new atmosphere (Binns, 2005). Moreover, this strategy may also increase public attention to raise the heed and cohesion of residents. As a result, under the premise of appropriate planning, the city’s economy and the identity of the locals may both be redeveloped.. One of the most well-known practices through this type of regeneration is by establishing a cultural flagship project. It may become an engine for cities to regenerate, especially in those cities that rapidly need a brand-new icon to create effectiveness or for specific needs (Evans, 2005). Obvious evidence of this kind of planning can be seen in Paris, Bilbao, Liverpool, Busan, Taipei and many more. This scheme, respected as a panacea, not only may draw in predictable tourists for further sightseeing activities but may also encourage the agglomeration of communities in cities through appropriate planning. Thus, even if the profit of this technique may be tempting, it is still understandable why many urban planners highly recommended to revitalise a city through a cultural flagship.. At the same time, the collision of a culture-led regeneration is also evident. The symbolic meaning of the project or the cultural flagship creation itself may both provoke conflicts rather than fusions. The main dispute focuses on the representation of the culture that brings out a tricky conundrum: which or whose ‘culture’ should be selected and promoted? Generally speaking, not all cities do have a strong unitary culture, but mostly they would have a wide range of cultures with their own proud and pride. In some 1.

(12) particular situations, the term of ‘culture’ may either become a thorny or a sensitive issue, especially in those cities that are divided by two or more ideologies. As a result, even though these complicit issues plague the development of regenerating cities, the foreseeable benefits of this method still fascinate urban planners willing to take the chance.. 1.2. Research Motivation In the case of Belfast’s regeneration, the selection of which culture becomes extremely significant. To re-image the city through a Belfast-Born-Product culture, the urban planners came up with the idea of relaunching a sunken ship named Titanic as their culture element. Through a ‘heritagisation’ process to build up a strong nexus between a culture-led regeneration and a cultural flagship project, the Titanic culture suddenly became the spotlight in Belfast. The decision makers; moreover, put forward to construct a multifunctional Titanic theme museum named the ‘Titanic Belfast, which was planned in 2004 and opened in 2012. With high hopes willing to sail the new honour of a brandnew Belfast from the sea to the world by this establishment, the Titanic cultural flagship is intended as the regeneration symbol for the city. Thus, this project may possibly bring attention and might draw in predictable tourists to visit Belfast; nevertheless, could a notorious sunken ship, or such commercialised culture be admitted by the locals?. On the other hand, owing to the background that the author has experienced, the linkage between Belfast and the author is profound as a strong intersection. As a personal testimonial, the unexpected transformation of Belfast since 1995 to 2017 has clearly been seen with the author’s own eyes. The author has lived in Belfast during 1995 to 1999 and went back during summer days during 2000 to 2010. She has studied in Belfast for a year from 2012 to 2013 and has programmed a research field trip during the summer in 2015. Even though there are still some issues which cannot be solved at the moment in Belfast, the 20 years of changing are absolutely astonishing—Belfast is becoming a friendlier and worth visiting city. Emblazonments have also been given from many authoritative institutions such as Lonely Plants (2012), Fodor’s (2012), National Geographic Traveler (2012), Trip Advisor (2011, 2014), European Group Travel Awards (2015), and The 2.

(13) Guardian and Observer Travel Awards (2016) due to the transitions that Belfast has done and created in the world. These rewards were highly correlated with the establishment of ‘Titanic Belfast’ and the usage of Titanic culture which both of them were highlighted in the Belfast’s regeneration process. Hence, the author is curious about the whole cultureled regeneration process in Belfast which is also her main motivation for this research.. 1.3. Research Aim and Objectives Little attention has been given to the relationship between the above concepts. The aim of this research is to discover the value of a cultural flagship, the use of a heritagisation process, and the compromise of selecting the Titanic culture as one of the main cultural representations for the case study of Belfast’s urban regeneration. Basically, this research will be divided into two major questions to elaborate as the following below:. . Why did the decision makers select Titanic as their primary culture and established the Titanic Belfast to regenerate Belfast, Northern Ireland?. . To what extent does the Titanic Belfast fit the criterion for a beneficial cultural flagship project?. For the first question, to investigate the reason and the preference of conducting the Titanic culture as the cultural element of the ‘Titanic Belfast’ is the main aim of this research. For sure, the policy-makers in Belfast had launched ‘The Titanic’ from the sea back to the ground which this ‘Titanic culture/heritage’ has been ‘heritagised’ and transformed as a brand-new culture element to regenerate the city. Therefore, this research includes probing the practice of a culture-led regeneration through the establishment of a cultural flagship project. The use of a heritagisation process will also be seen as a bridge to link the above subjects together. Also, to evaluate the value of a merit cultural flagship, a criterion is necessary. The final question is to evaluate the use of the Titanic Belfast to understand the benefit of the establishment after its opening in 2012.. 3.

(14) 1.4. Research Case Belfast, a conflict city, which has been tagged with the name of ‘conflicts’ for decades, nowadays it is willing to transform itself for a better living lifestyle and to reimage for a brand-new pretension. However, the complicated historical background of Belfast should not be forgotten this factor highlighted the uniqueness of this young city for the research of urban regeneration study—there are different issues of ‘conflicts’ in the case of Belfast to consider while planning: the (old) conflicts of two ideologies (British and Irish), the conflicts of economic and social issues (Piecemeal Demonstrations and Regeneration Development), and the conflicts of the representative culture of Belfast (Titanic or something else). Given the fact that these ‘conflicts’ are inevitable, the continuous road of creating a brand-new Belfast imagery and a unique pride for both residents and outsiders is the most important purpose of the bipartisan government in Belfast since the peace agreement.. Unlike other post-industrial cities in the United Kingdom, the road of revitalising Belfast was far more difficult and complicated. After the sinking of the Titanic in 1912, the decline of the shipbuilding industry in Belfast started at the end of the 20th century, and this geographical area went directly into a part of the Irish Civil War. However, the tragic did not end. During the 1960s to 1980s, the coming outbreak of ‘The Troubles’, which is the conflict of those ethnic-nationalist, immediately spread out in Northern Ireland and destroyed Belfast.. Not until an important agreement, signed in 1998, did the ‘Troubles’ allow Northern Ireland to breath and alleviate the simmering tension in different regions. Supported by politicians and business people, the significance of the Good Friday Agreement—which brought relative political stability—had been hoped that large amounts of capital would flow into Northern Ireland and stimulated sectors (Ramsey, 2013). Both the Irish and British states believed that conventional economics is the method of accomplishing peace dividends and could also boost developmental progress in Belfast (Muir, 2013; Ramsey, 2013; Shirlow 2006). Hence, to achieve the shared goal and start a ‘New Belfast’, many 4.

(15) new plans has been brought out by the bipartisan agreement between two major parties.. Argued by Neill (2014), ‘An Urban Renaissance’ notion sprung out into the private sectors in Northern Ireland during 1998 to 2007. Led by the Department for Social Development (DSD) and the Department of Enterprise, Trade, and Investment (DETI), the key concept of this renaissance included two prompt developments: urban regeneration and tourism. While the former contains the imperative of Belfast’s industrial sites redevelopment, the latter involves the need of immediate economic stimulus through commercial developments. The planners wished these regeneration projects in Belfast could transform this city into a friendlier living environment and also become a tourist destination to draw in outsiders. Therefore, related constructions were built during this period, for example, Belfast’s riverfront, Castlecourt Mall, Laganside Courts, and the landmark Millennium Project, which unfortunately lost its iconic opportunity for Belfast, the ‘Odyssey’.. Another reason that encouraged the government to focus on the above spheres in the beginning of Belfast’s reborn was because of the European Culture of Capital (ECOC) competition for 2008. Belfast’s government wanted to stand out from the ECOC competition and become one of the candidate cities in the United Kingdom because it was an enchanted opportunity for this city to show their determination of reborn. The benefits of rewarding the title not only included the frame of the centre of culture but it may also draw in a certain amount of money from the ECOC committee and other possible sponsors to give impetus to Belfast’s urban developments. Therefore, the coordinated team promoted a reformed Belfast with the bid ‘Imagine Belfast’ to the world, hoping to follow Glasgow’s winning footsteps in 1990. The people held high hope for this chance and believed Belfast was qualified enough to win the title; however, the city was eliminated and did not enter the second selection circle.. Even though the title of ECOC was not given to Belfast, the whole developing process of a cultural perspective revitalisation still continued (from 2003 to 2012 and beyond). To proclaim that Belfast is transforming from the dark past, developments in 5.

(16) environmental, social and cultural sectors can be seen in these decades. The change is not only about establishing new multi-functional buildings for better living infrastructures but also, more importantly, to rebuild the pride and honour back to Belfast with its own culture and heritages through heritagisation. As a result, an exclusive flagship project— the Titanic Belfast—was identified in Northern Ireland Tourism Board’s Strategic Framework for Action 2004-2007 to enhance the tourism industry. Expecting this ‘signature project’ would achieve international ‘stand-out’ and cause a significant impact on Northern Ireland’s tourism performance (Northern Ireland Tourism Board[NITB], 2003), including to draw visitors from home and overseas, it also became one of the major engines for Belfast’s regeneration.. To be honest, selecting ‘Titanic’ as one of the major cultural themes to promote Belfast is indeed a contradictory decision, not to mention its problematic invocation of heritage. Graham et al. (2000) defined heritage saying that it is ‘the meanings and representations attached to the past in the present’ (p.1). However, Belfast’s heritage was mostly labeled with continuing bomb alerts or unsafety ideology conflicts in neighborhoods, which one of the most famous outcomes was the establishment of the ‘peace wall’ to separate different communities. Therefore, the extreme mission in Belfast at that time was to employ a past memory that not only contains a sense of honour and pride from themselves but also could avoid any additional conflicts which may arouse dissatisfaction from any ideology groups in the city. That is to say, the planners were searching for a heritage that could possibly stand neutral. As a result, in order to meet the above conditions, planners skimmed through Belfast’s history, which one of the most famous and impressive periods was during the early 20th century when the shipyard industry in Belfast was in its heydays—the establishment of the Titanic was also at this stage.. Even though the culture of the Titanic did bring in the economic and social benefits into this city, local residents have different opinions due to the selection of Titanic culture. Not all of the people agreed it has become reprehensive of Belfast at the moment. A large amount of people disagrees the idea of this sunken ship as their mainstream city culture. 6.

(17) The reasons may include that a part of them have their own strong sense of identity, yet the main argument is because this topic it contains humanitarianism and the odd feeling of promoting a hundred-unspoken sunken ship, not to speak of being proud of it. On the other hand, there are people that were happy to see the new Belfast through presenting the Titanic which somehow ignored the dark period. Thus, this topic draws out an interesting phenomenon for deeper research.. To sum up, agreed by several scholars, Belfast is a city full of ‘contracts and contradictions’ which is dogged by local inertias. The affections from the troubles still exist in areas of Northern Ireland, which at the same time it is unavoidable to ignore this tricky topic during any urban planning. However, the foreseeable benefits of using culture and heritage to regenerate the city are hard to resist, let alone those policy-makers are also wishing to use this method and transform the image of Belfast from the past. Undoubtedly, the issue of ‘culture’ in the city of Belfast is still very divisive. Nevertheless, this sort of ambivalent feelings in some way are the uniqueness of this city and it also distinguished Belfast from other cities. Due to this point, if properly planned, this mixed feeling could become a distinctive selling point for tourism used to fascinate various types of tourists who have interests and to become a compromising cultural element for further cultural regeneration planning in Belfast. Hence, even though the balance between the pursuit of development and healing process in the city from the past is quite knotty (Neill, Murray & Grist, 2014), Belfast is still trying to move beyond conflict through a cultural urban regeneration and culture.. 7.

(18) 1.5. Chapter Outline and Study Process This research is divided into five chapters which are listed below (See Figure 1.1):. Chapter 1. • • • •. Research Background Research Motivation Research Aim and Objectives Research Case. Chapter 2. • • • •. Culture and Urban Regeneration Heritagisation and Culture-led Regeneration Evaluating Criterion for Cultural Flagship Projects Research Rationale. Chapter 3. Chapter 4. Chapter 5. • Research Design • Data Collection • Validity and Reliability. • The Transformation of Belfast • The Heritagisation of the Titanic Culture • Evaluating the Titanic Belfast. • • • •. Conclusion Contribution Limitation An Advise for Futher Studies. Figure 1.1 The Study Process of This Research. 8.

(19) 2. Literature Review This chapter centralises on the literature in parts of the cultural-led regeneration, the heritagisation process, and cultural flagship projects. In the first section, to elaborate the role of culture in the regeneration process is essential because it is the base of the whole planning programme. Having a sense of the relationship between culture and urban regeneration, we can now continue to discover the term of a cultural-led regeneration process such as its concept, influences, and examples from other cities of this project.. Secondly, the notion, the process, and the definition of a heritagisation will be shifted and analysed in the beginning paragraph to deliberate the affection of this process. It may become an advantageous method if properly organized. Thus, a brief argument about the value of a heritagisation process will also be discussed through the four values including economic, social, political, and cultural. Moreover, the combination of a heritagisation process and models of a culture-led regeneration will be studied carefully in this section. Last but not least, the effect of establishing a cultural flagship project will also be investigated in this section with various examples.. In the third section, arranged from Grodach (2010) and Hayes’s (2009) theory, an evaluating criterion for a sustainable and effective cultural flagship is also displayed as the main range in this section. The five categories are as the following: the vision, the design, the visitor-attractiveness, the location and community fit, and the planning process.. Finally, a simplified summary of the literature review will be set forth in a conclusion which the aim of this research is to discover how does a cultural flagship could become an engine to reborn urban cities through a culture-led regeneration. Furthermore, how can a heritagisation process become an adhesive for this project? All these questions will be probed in the next chapter.. 9.

(20) 2.1. Culture and Urban Regeneration 2.1.1. The role of culture in regeneration In discussing the relationship between culture and urban regeneration, the term by combining culture into a city’s regeneration process has been frequently used during the previous decades. In particular, culture as an element in the field of urban regeneration has been frequently utilised and has become an ‘indispensable tool’ since the 1970’s which many policy-makers believe this combination would create multiplier effects in the regional economy and city marketing (Evans, 2001; Mooney, 2004). In other words, the term culture, which includes the patterns of behavior and the potential for the different field of goals (Comedia, 2003), has been transformed and simplified as ‘cultural resources’ for urban regeneration use. Some remarkable results were shown in many European cities.. This cultural planning, as Smith (2006, 2009) noted, is aiming to transform physical space and it is also one of the methods of government planners to integrate cultural resources into the everyday lives of people. If this cultural urban regeneration planning process has been strategically planned, it will be considered that those cultural resources can bring to a community diverse benefits, including development, pluralistic, social inclusion, improve the quality of life, and aspects of culture (Smith, 2006). Moreover, the ERM Economics (2003:2) adopted that this method of using culture in regeneration planning can create not only urban competitiveness but also emphasise the fact that ‘excellence and critical mass in culture, art, sport, heritage […] are all essential prerequisites to a competitive city and national economy’.. While the concept of culture in urban regeneration use has been frequently discussed, Evans (2004:5, 2005) identified the cultural context of urban regeneration and divided the concept into three major models for a clearer classification between the different levels of the cultural activity incorporation. . Culture and Regeneration: Culture activities are not fully integrated into the urban development strategy process and they are excluded from the 10.

(21) regeneration sector—in this term, culture is only a part of the regeneration, not the core. Moreover, the size of the intervention has been often small-scale without comprehensively planned provision, for example, a business park or a public art programme.. . Cultural-led Regeneration: Cultural activities are considered as a catalyst of the regeneration process. Those activities are mostly height exposure signature projects due to its immediate affection on cities’ image. Also, it may be designed for public or business use or a reclamation of open space. For example, establishing flagship infrastructures, or holding mega-events. The activity itself may also be cited as the sign of regeneration.. . Cultural Regeneration: Cultural activities are completely combined into the regeneration strategy, including environmental, social and economic sphere. In this model, the relationship between cultural planning, cultural policy, and regeneration development is closely associated.. According to Evans’s brief definition of the three models by using culture as a key player in the progress of urban regeneration, this thesis focuses on the major content of a ‘culture-led regeneration’ model which it is by including cultural activities as becoming engines for the revitalise movement in places. To be more precise, cultural projects could become the medium for regenerating economically depressed cities and regions (Degen & García, 2012; Middleton and Freestone, 2008), for fostering a new image for cities with cultural activities (Doucet, 2007; Evans, 2005; Middleton & Freestone, 2008; Smith, 2006, 2009), for encouraging social cohesion with corresponding culture planning (Evans, 2005; García, 2004; Miles and Paddison, 2005; Lin & Hsing, 2008), and for building up a political process which includes a connection between local community identities and socio-cultural diversification to globalisation through culture (De Frantz, 2013). Hence, the following paragraph will be analysing the concept and effect of a cultural-led regeneration.. 11.

(22) 2.1.2. Culture-led Regeneration Being seen as a magnificent vision for urban planning, the method of a culture-led regeneration has been widely spread from country to country through the perversion of policy knowledge (Lin & Hsing, 2008; Miles & Paddison, 2005). While facing stagnant economies after the industrial decline since the 1980’s, these cities were wishing to solve problems of unemployment and deprivation as a result of globalisation, especially for those post-industrial city policy-makers such as Glasgow, Bilbao, and Liverpool. The impact of globalisation was tremendous that increased competitiveness between cities to struggle for recourses (Bianchini, 1993; Lin and Hsing, 2008; Middleton & Freestone, 2008). Therefore, the attractiveness of cities using a culture-led regeneration was irresistible when it has been confirmed by scholars its possibilities of resolving multidimensions of political or socioeconomic problems, for instance, declining urban areas, financial crises and economic restructuring (Bianchini, 1993). On the other hand, according to the strategy of culture-led regeneration that could renovate the quality of living standards and lighted the amuse of specific cultures, cities could also attract different investors and fascinate various tourists willing to spend time and money which could facilitate local development. Due to these concepts, expounded by Keating and De Frantz (2003), they claimed that:. “In a crowded international market, [by the use of a culture-led regeneration] can mark the city as distinct, giving it a brand image. This can indirectly promote its economic competitiveness by increasing its position in the quality-life indexes of international investment rankings. It may also have a psychological effect within the city, building selfconfidence and civic pride among the population and even boosting optimism among investors.” (p.189). However, the prospect of integrating cultural elements and activities into the regeneration process is far more luscious. Evans (2003) describes the use of a culturalled regeneration as an ‘irresistible cocktail’ as it could bring foreseeable profits in both 12.

(23) environment and employment situations in a city, for instance, make changes to their city’s image, prevent further job and population loss, create a high-quality environment, and produce advantages for economic developments. Moreover, Vickery (2007) claimed that this flavor, therefore, becomes the common and recurring aspirations in four important dimensions:. . To create an interaction between culture and commerce, social and institutional life.. . To inspire visionary ideas providing impetuses for cultural change and social participation without traditional social divisions.. . To express a visible international cultural consciousness.. . And the most important one, to reconstruct civic identity and to express collective aspirations.. As a result, these notions draw out the fact that a culture-led regeneration could not only bring multidimensional benefits in economic spheres but also in social dimensions. The effect is advantageous.. Discussing the affection of the social sphere in the use of culture-led regeneration, on the contrary, some scholars believe that emphasising on culture would spur the area and create closeness. For example, promoting grassroots cultural activities including arts and performance could have a strong evidence of attempting community groups into the process of social cohesion (Binns, 2005; Jones & Wilks-Heeg, 2004). To be more accurate, the motivation of improving social cohesion, reinforcing the identity of place and providing various opportunities for new and old local communities would also be influenced by this term and generate social capital if suitably planned. Moreover, Carnegie and Norris (2015) argued that the process of cultural-led regeneration has the potential to generate social benefits, especially for those disadvantaged communities. They claimed that cultural-led regeneration could also combat stigmatisation, build local capacity and improve community cohesion in an area with a condition that the participation of local communities in the cultural activities process is the decisive key 13.

(24) point. In other words, this process somehow could become a turning point to those communities, allowing them to have an opportunity to develop their own form of cultural capitals.. Many researchers have claimed the positive effects of a cultural-led regeneration in the process of social cohesion within the embedding of local cultures based on some reasons. The potential of engaging local culture in the process is powerful. For example, local culture could be collaborating with creativity to demonstrate the uniqueness of the place; furthermore, it can strengthen the cohesion of the area’s civil-society and foster local identity by ‘reviving’ the resources and cultural activities of the place (García, 2004; Miles, 2005; Miles and Paddison, 2005; Lin & Hsing, 2008). To be more accurate, a cultural-led regeneration project needs to include the locality’s cultural-historical meanings during the revitalising process or else it would become an elite-dominated and commercially driven cultural project (Miles, 2005). Negative influences may generate vicious cycles to dilute the local meaning and its cultural values (Carey & Sutton, 2004; Miles & Paddison, 2005; Lin & Hsing, 2008). Hence, while cities are approaching different strategies of culture-led regeneration, there are three major preferences when local governments adopt cultural resources for intervention in post-industrial urban regeneration establishment: cultural quarter, mega-events, and flagship projects for economic development. We will discuss the pros and cons of the above preferences with combining a heritagisation process together in the following chapters.. 2.2. Heritagisation and Culture-led Regeneration 2.2.1. Heritagisation Equipped with the meaning of ‘an inheritance’ with sets of values and collective memories, the idea of heritage using in practices is a controversial transformation process. The debate is generally contentious and till nowadays still many scholars rarely reached consensus. In spite of the inconclusive dispute, Graham, Ashworth and Tunbridge (2000) gave definitions and differentiated the term ‘past’, ‘history’, and ‘heritage’ (see Table.2.1). Smith (2009) linked those three terms by claiming that ‘heritage is a means of linking 14.

(25) past and present, and enlivening history’. In other words, heritage could be used as an element to communicate and link different generations (Graham et al., 2000). This concept was further proclaimed by Harrison (2013:4) as he believed that heritage could be seen as a creative engagement to help us shape our future. In addition, containing from a more in kind perspective, heritage itself is ‘a new form of a cultural production of the present that take recourse to the past’ (Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, 1995:259). The production of heritage could be seen in contemporary cultures, art production, and other commercial activities such as tourism (Peckham, 2003; Tunbridge & Ashworth, 1996). As a result, heritage itself could be appreciated as both inheriting the past and producing in contemporary. However, to be more precise, the procedure of instantiating a heritage is called a ‘heritagisation’. Table 2.1 The Evolution of Heritagisation. Past. . All that has ever happened. History. . The attempts of successive presents to explain selected aspects of the past. Heritage. . A view from the present, either backward to a past or forward to a future and a contemporary use of the past, including both its interpretation and representation. Heritagisation. . A process in which heritage is selected, transformed, constructed, and used as a resource or instrument to achieve certain social goods (Bendix, 2009; Harrison, 2013; Margry, 2011; Poria, 2010; Roigé & Figolé, 2010; SánchezCarretero, 2015). . A process which objects and places are transformed from functional ‘things’ to objects of displays and exhibition (Di Méo, 2008; Harrison, 2013), to cultural productions (Gillot et al., 2013), and to an element of urban design and cultural tourism developments (Bendix, 2009; Gillot et al., 2013). Source: Adapted from Graham et al. (2000). 15.

(26) In the English-speaking world, the word ‘Heritagisation’ was well known from Walsh (1992) on the issue of heritage space use as he argued that heritagisation is a pejorative way and it is a ‘false representation of the past’. This idea of ‘the destruction of culture produced by tourism’ was because the heritagisation of spaces were designed to revitalise an ailing economy—it was an ahistorical aestheticisation (Sánchez-Carretero, 2015; Smith, 2009; Walsh, 1992). At that time, the concept and the word of ‘heritagisation’ were still blurred in terms of English. Neither it was accepted as an appropriate word nor was defined clearly. A while later, not until a project that the Encyclopedia of French Cultural Heritage in North America has described the word ‘heritagisation’ as a ‘synonym of heritage building process’ which includes cultural, social, and political currents (movements and trends) as well as the building process of a heritage asset (heritagisation) and its perpetuation, successive adaptations and recognition (Encyclopedia of French Cultural Heritage in North America, 2007).. Additionally, in the French-speaking world, the word ‘Patrimonialisation’ was rather commonly used. Di Méo (2008) defined the notion into two views: (i) to a construction process of heritage applying to an object (things, work, property, building, sites, landscapes, etc.), or (ii) to a reality ideal (thoughts, value, testimony, event, practices, customs, etc.). That is to say, those that have been absent in the past, built structure objects, natural and cultural landscapes, and customs practices could all be recognised as an element for heritagisation (Salemink, 2016). This building process was also discussed by Davallon (2014) as he believed that a partrimonialisation is the process by which a collective identity has recognized the value of either tangible or intangible object and became heirs of them. Moreover, this heir group has also been given the obligation to preserve those objects in order to pass it to the future. Thus, ‘heritagisation’ and ‘patrimonialisation’ consists similar meanings in different languages.. According to the above depiction and to leave aside Walsh’s disparage term of heritagisation, both the word and concept nowadays rather become neutral and contain a brighter meaning of its effects. In fact, some scholars are relatively positive about this process. According to Poria (2010), she gave ‘the use of heritage’ an outbreak definition: 16.

(27) the practice of the use of heritage is a ‘heritagisation’ process—heritage is used as a resource to achieve certain social goods. Based on this notion, heritagisation becomes the ‘idea of heritage as a meta-cultural production and a social construction, including transmissions and preservation’ (Kirshenbaltt-Gimblett, 1995; Sánchez-Carretero, 2015). Roigé & Figolé (2010) highlighted and claimed that those processes of cultural production (both cultural and natural) elements are selected and reworked for new social uses. Margry (2011) even insisted that heritagisation is:. ‘The process by which cultural phenomena or cultural objects, old and modern, are labeled 'Cultural heritage' by the involved actors and a consequence, get new meanings and undergo[es] transformative changes and become an instrumentalisation of the past for the future.’ (p.336). Furthermore, other scholars believed that a heritagisation also contains a ‘valued inheritance’ and a ‘re-telling process from new perspectives for adapting new lives in new lands’ (Ashely, 2014; Bains, 2013). In short, heritagisation is not about the past but about the uses of the past in the present that are primarily concerned with objects and cultural products—is a constructed process (Di Méo, 2008; Gillot et al., 2013; Sánchez-Carretero, 2015).. On the contrary, if the above concept of a heritagisation is acceptable, it also means that the whole process has been ‘selected’ through someone—of collective identity groups or the authorities who have power or control of the area. Generally speaking, the selective heritage may be seen as one of the symbols that the area or city believes or approves the value which expresses a collective (social) affectation of meaning (Di Méo, 2008). However, the most intractable issue may be ‘who should select the heritage’ and ‘whose or which heritage should be represented? This argument has been strongly confirmed from both heritage and heritagisation perspective through many scholars. The complexity of the competitions between different cultural capital owners and symbolic struggles in the heritagisation process could not be ignored, which the decisions may cause ‘disconnection’ in the society (Salemink, 2016). On the one hand, not all of the places have a 17.

(28) strong unitary culture and heritage. Mostly they would have a wide range of cultures and heritages which each of them has their own proud and pride. In some particular situations, the term of culture or heritage rather becomes a thorny and a sensitive issue, especially when the region has been divided by several ideologies. On the other hand, this heritagisation process may become an instrument or variable in the struggles for power on local and super local levels of government due to its powerful influences of the potential to control others (Bendix, 2009; Littler, 2005). It could also be utilised as a strong tool to establish the right of an authority, to enhance their reputation, and to attract other investors to support (Di Méo, 2008). Therefore, it is understandable that who obtains the authority of planning may have the decision power of selecting which heritage should be promoted. However, at the same time, it should be kept in mind that this process may also draw out the contradictive fact that the selective power was given from the local residents to the authorities.. From the above arrangement and to give a short summary, there are three main points to understand: Firstly, it is undeniable that the relationship between heritage and heritagisation is somehow interlinked which they could share similar concepts and meanings. However, it might be understood that heritage itself in the process of heritagisation has been seen as an ‘element’, ‘instrument’, or ‘object’ for further social use. Secondly, the definition of a heritagisation could be clarified into a generalising concept :(i) It is a process in which heritage is selected, transformed, constructed, and used as a resource or instrument to achieve certain social goods (Bendix; Harrison, 2013; Margry, 2011; Poria, 2010; Roigé & Figolé, 2010; Sánchez-Carretero, 2015); and also a functional concept: (ii) It is a process which objects and places are transformed from functional ‘things’ to objects of displays and exhibition (Di Méo, 2008; Harrison, 2013), to cultural productions (Gillot et al., 2013), and to an element of urban design and cultural tourism developments (Bendix, 2009; Gillot et al., 2013). Last but not least, it is incontrovertible that heritagisation may contain intractable competitions between different cultural capital owners, which the struggling relationship between ‘those who have decisions’ and ‘those who do not’ should be also considered as well.. 18.

(29) 2.2.2. 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 19.

(30) 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) 20.

(31) 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 21.

(32) 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:. 22.

(33) Table 2.2 The Two-Sided Effect on the Culture-led Regeneration models. Advantages . Long-term process. . Industrial Transformation. Production:. . Localisation. Cultural. . Creative business. Quarters. . Various mixture of leisure, art, and business together in. Disadvantages . long-term supports . Job losses is limited. . Gentrification. . Low tourism or investment attraction. public space . Immediate image to public by presses.  Consumption: Mega-events. Multiplier Effect on Tourism in specific time. . Creative industries need. Participation from tourists and locals. . Off-season balancing. . Attracting more. . Only a few companies can benefit from it. . Short-lived programme. . Series copy events. . Disconnected with locals. . Loss of authenticity. . Only a few companies. investments and tourists. can benefit from it . Become a landmark or. . image of a city Consumption: Flagships. . Expensive cost and to maintain it. Multiplier Effect on. . Higher cultural capital. Tourism. . Tourism demand is. . Permanent building. higher than the local. . Space development. demand. . Increase job opportunity. . Series copy starchitectures.  Source: Arranged by the author (2017). 23. Disconnected with locals.

(34) 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 24.

(35) 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. 25.

(36) (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 26.

(37) 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 27.