Integrating heritage with development policy

[Harold F. Schiffman]

Pride of Place : Integrating heritage with development policy

First posted 09:27pm (Mla time) Jan 15, 2006
By Augusto Villalon
Inquirer

Editor's Note: Published on page C3 of the January 16, 2006 issue of the
Philippine Daily Inquirer.


First of two parts

AWARENESS AND COOPERATION ARE most important considerations when
initiating a legal framework that successfully integrates architectural
heritage with development policies. All sectors, public and private, must
be aware of the particular architectural heritage of the city and their
joint responsibility to conserve it. They must be aware of the uniqueness
of their heritage, of the benefits conservation will bring to the people
and to their city. Most important, both sectors must have the same clear
picture of how the integration of the new with the old can be achieved.

Cooperation comes hand in hand with awareness. Conservation of heritage
and national development are primarily for the benefit of the people. They
improve the quality of life. Therefore, to achieve them, there must be
joint participation of the public and private sectors.

It does not really matter whether government or stakeholders initiate the
development program. What matters is that the stakeholders are involved in
the program to the point of assuming "ownership," thus assuring their
commitment and participation toward the success of the program. In many
foreign examples, government-initiated programs implemented without
stakeholder participation have largely been failures. Conservation
programs by the City of Manila and the Intramuros Administration are
perfect examples.

For an overview of the heritage that is to be conserved, we should look at
its total scope. Heritage consists of tangible and intangible
manifestations that express the individuality of a culture. Tangible
expressions are architecture, townscapes, cityscapes, painting, sculpture
and traditional craft. Intangible expressions are music, dance,
literature, cuisine and much more.

After considering the total range of the tangible and intangible, we see
that cultural heritage defines the unique qualities of a people, giving
them an identity that sets them apart in today's globalized world. The
architecture and urbanscapes are simply one part of the entire cultural
heritage picture-the spaces where cultural activities take place.
However, neither heritage nor architecture exists in a vacuum. They are
part of human life.

Therefore, we should ideally plan on conserving architectural heritage,
including the other tangible and intangible aspects that take place within
the architectural envelope. We are conserving the total heritage picture.

Identity

What would the Philippines be without its language, music, dance,
sculpture, cuisine and other facets of its culture? Its heritage is what
gives the country an identity. Without it, the Philippines could easily be
mistaken for any other country in the world. To keep the Philippines
standing out as unique among other cultures existing in the world today,
it is therefore essential to conserve all aspects of its heritage, not
only the architectural and urban, as part of a national development
strategy that sees the importance of total heritage picture to establish a
national image.

Conservation of heritage is essential in nation-building. In
nation-building, we are concerned with the hardware, with the measurable.
We tally GNP, currency reserves, kilometers of new highways, increased
electrical power supply, new airports, number of tourist arrivals, hotels,
and so on. However, to make the gains from improved hardware relevant,
they must result in improving the life of the people. Which is where the
software takes over.

Software is psychic, not measurable. It consists of inputs resulting in an
improved quality of life-comfortable cities, vibrant entertainment,
museums that excite people, festivals and other aspects that make life
more pleasant for everyone. After all, what good is achieving all the
hardware if life remains the same? In most cities today, many do not like
old buildings. They prefer to replace them with new structures. A popular
belief exists around the globe that we must destroy the past to move
forward, that the past symbolizes an era of darkness, of ignorance,
poverty and oppression.

That rationale justifies the continued destruction of what remains of the
fragile architectural heritage in many cities. The new buildings built on
the debris of the old are seen to be symbols of having stepped out of the
Dark Ages into the 21st century. They are the shining skyscrapers of
progress, but not necessarily architecture as good as what they replaced.

Today people realize that skyscrapers are not really the signs of progress
as once thought. Hong Kong and Singapore relentlessly built skyscraper
after skyscraper over the skeletons of their heritage buildings. After a
few decades of construction, they realized that memory had been erased
from their cities, that local residents were looking to revive their
connections with the past, and that the special identity of their cities
was close to disappearing.

To correct the situation, the Urban Redevelopment Authority of Singapore
identified heritage neighborhoods, set guidelines for their conservation.
It either purchased blocks of houses for conservation by the Ura or
offered assistance to private property-owners who wished to conserve their
houses. The lesson to learn from Singapore is that the legislation did not
focus on single, stand-alone heritage properties, but instead on
conserving groups of houses or entire neighborhood settings. Setting gives
more relevance to conserving architectural heritage. It encourages a
continuation of the living patterns that may have existed within the
neighborhood.

http://news.inq7.net/lifestyle/index.php?index=2&story_id=63048&col=1