THE FACADE OF URBAN HERITAGE POLICY AND

PRACTICE: AN ALTERNATE FRAMEWORK FOR CRITICAL HERITAGE STUDIES.

by

Rob Nordrum

RESEARCH PAPER (10 page version)

GEOGRAPHY OF THE URBAN BUILT ENVIRONMENT

© Rob Nordrum 2014 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

Fall 2014

All rights reserved. However, in accordance with the Copyright Act of Canada, this work may be reproduced, without authorization, under the conditions for Fair Dealing. Therefore, limited reproduction of this work for the purposes of private

study, research, criticism, review and news reporting is likely to be in accordance with the law, particularly if cited appropriately.

1

“It is an inheritance only of memory, if such physical traces are erased through

demolishment without care of history and stories that need to be remembered about

Canada`s development into this Multicultural nation”

– from a letter by Grace Eiko Thomson to Vancouver City Council making a case to halt the demolition of the Ming Sun building in

Vancouver‟s historic Japantown.

This paper uses the City of Vancouver‟s attempts to demolish Japantown‟s historic

122-year-old Ming Sun building as a basis for analysing its current heritage preservation

policy and regulations. Undoubtedly the Sun Ming is a culturally and historically relevant

building, which begs the question: why was it not protected? I will attempt to answer this

question by examining how both the City and theorists measure heritage value and exploring

whom does current heritage policy actually serve?

Using existing academic literature on urban historical preservation policy and

management as a springboard for my analysis, and then borrowing from critical urban

geography, I will propose an alternate geographic-based framework for heritage policy-

making and study. I will then review Vancouver‟s current heritage policy and close with an

analysis of the Ming Sun building as a case study to illustrate how an adapted framework

could be used to better understand (and possibly improve) urban heritage policy and

scholarship.

Conceptual Framework

It goes without saying that urban-built heritage is an important component of the

cultural heritage in towns and cities (Tweed:63). Within the realm of urban planning there

exists however a dichotomy between “preserving the past for its intrinsic value and the need

for development in response to changing societal values” (Nasser:468). Academic writings

debate the value of heritage. Campbell, for one, believes that the romanticized past offers

little to planning, stating that “our modern path to sustainability lies forward, not behind us”

(302). By contrast, Nasser asserts that urban heritage has a greater value. “Heritage places,”

2

he writes, “represent layers of evolving traditional forms of architecture and city building that

have together created a sense of place” (468). Nasser recognizes the “sense of place as an

important dimension of sustainable places, strengthening local identity, contributing to

investment, and retaining communities” (468). Campbell and Nasser, when juxtaposed,

demonstrate the strong difference of opinion among scholars regarding the value of urban

heritage.

This paper will evaluate how heritage value gets assigned. Who does the assigning?

Who benefits? Do the planning profession and academic theorists differ in their views on

these issues?

I share the views espoused by Nasser: that there is intrinsic value to heritage space

and therefore a need to preserve it wherever possible. A new conceptual framework could

infuse and improve practical heritage planning and policy. The use of three geographic scales

– faccia (face), corpus (body), and reseau (network) – would encourage contemporary

planning and policy models to fully recognize the value of urban heritage.

Tweed and others believe that the current definitions of heritage are too narrow and

“rely on conventional conceptions of architectural and historical value.” In most countries

historical preservation policies go no further than the “conservation of specific buildings,

monuments and special areas that are architecturally or historically significant” (Tweed:63,

Whitehand:6950).

Assumptions that the communicative turn in planning might address these issues do

not bear fruit. Planning literature, academics, and practitioners have over the years embraced

the post-positivist turn towards a communicative or collaborative model of planning and

theory. This has resulted in two dominant ideals being applied: “a traditional rational view on

planning, and a communicative planning ideal” (Olsson:374). Olsson suggests that in

3

practice, planning is a mix of both the instrumental rational process and the communicative

dialogue-based process, with each ideal balancing or correcting the other‟s shortcomings,

thereby working in tandem (375). When it comes to the study and practice of heritage

preservation, rational traditional views tend to prevail among planners, academics, and

heritage planning and management. The current model used in heritage management is

“identification and protection of monuments, specific objects and well-defined areas that are

especially valuable from a historical perspective” (Olsson:376). Ascribing “value,” however,

largely depends on expert opinion rather than public consultation (Olsson:376). Over-reliance

on the experts – archaeologists, art historians and architects – overlooks public commentary

and opinion (Olsson:376-380). Unlike communicative planning ideology, it is taken for

granted that expert-based values in heritage will coincide with those of the community and

society in general. In reality it is evident that “public good characteristics of the urban

environment and urban heritage do not automatically emerge in contemporary urban planning

and heritage management” (Olsson:391). Olsson‟s research found that the urban environment

in fact contains a mix of different and sometimes competing values, with heritage and real

estate values often in conflict. These values are based on “self-interests or expert opinions,

and, consequently, do not necessarily reflect a citizen view on the urban environment and

urban heritage” (391).

Olsson suggests that adding a participatory method of measuring the “public good” of

urban heritage would help rectify this dilemma. This model would seek citizen input at the

neighbourhood level to help identify heritage and enhance the methods currently in use

(Olsson:381-391). A citizen-based qualitative approach would require citizen input in two

scales: the individual and the group. Olsson suggests that analyzing direct and indirect use

values (how it is used), option use values (potential), existence values (carriers of meaning

4

and identity), and bequest values (future generations) would benefit current heritage

management and policies (Olsson:371-380).

According to Nasser, contemporary urban conservation and management has three

interrelated objectives; physical, spatial, and social (469). Physically, building preservation is

linked to new development to ensure a symbiosis that supports both continuous growth and

improvement of old environments. Spatially, it should view the cityscape as a whole, paying

attention to relationships between various places and spaces, including “circulation and

traffic.” Socially, it should address the needs and concerns of the users, local population and

the urban community (469). Nasser identifies a gap in both the literature and practices related

to social use of heritage and heritage management. The social component, the most

challenging to define, tends to be overlooked by planners and academics. Nasser and his

counterparts argue that both the social and cultural perspectives have been largely ignored in

favour of a focus on the physical form (477).

Once a historical asset has been identified, Nasser recommends a „management of

change‟ approach that I believe is particularly transferrable to Vancouver‟s heritage planning

and policy. His approach uses “adaptive reuse and reconstruction in order to combat both

structural and functional obsolescence” using “[s]kilfull reconstruction rather than

restoration... [which] contributes to added value of the building and forms parts of its

evolution (and survival)” (477). I believe local policymakers and planners, by relying on this

model, could eliminate some of the problems Olsson mentions flow from competing heritage

and real estate values.

To help better understand local heritage policy and practice, and to incorporate the

(previously omitted) social elements identified by Nasser, I wish to propose a new conceptual

framework based loosely on three social geographic scales. This will hopefully fill the

5

mentioned gaps, and is based on the three components of critical urban geography:

“proposing new concepts, ... research that is socially relevant and politically engaged, ... and

taking seriously experiences, lives, practices and words of ordinary urban residents and

marginalized social groups” (Jonas:2). I propose a geographically scalar framework that

could be used to analyse heritage policy and aid the process of heritage identification and

valuation using 3 scales: faccia (face), corpus (body), and reseau (network).

A faccia analysis focuses on the “face value” of a building. This reflects

contemporary heritage planning. The analysis favours the materiality of the building with

reference to traditional areas of architecture and art history and the productive value of the

building in economic terms. Faccia policy animates current policies and practices in

Vancouver where building facades are preserved while completely demolishing and

repurposing the remaining lot. The “use, cultural or social” value of the building itself is

therefore ignored.

A corpus analysis broadens the inquiry‟s scope to the entire metaphorical “body” of

the building, including the variety of values mentioned earlier by Olsson: indirect use values,

option use values, existence values, and bequest values, to name a few. A combination of

quantitative and qualitative analyses (with significant attention placed on a cooperative

planning model where the various users and communities are engaged) focuses on the

building as a whole. A more abstract analysis, beyond simple description and traditional

accounting of the material heritage value, is engaged. In this way, questions like “what does

the building mean?” and “for whom is it valuable?” are explored. This is the most

complicated of the three proposed scales, as abstract notions of social and cultural production

and reproduction are understandably difficult to measure.

6

A heritage house is not necessarily defined by its age but more by its heritage value and/or

heritage character. According to the National Standards & Guidelines for the Conservation

of Historic Places in Canada, heritage value is the aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or

spiritual importance or significance for past, present, or future generations. Heritage value is

embodied in all the materials, forms, spatial configurations, uses, and cultural associations

or meanings that together comprise a building‟s character-defining elements. Heritage

character is defined by the elements, including materials, forms, spatial configurations, uses

and cultural associations or meanings that together comprise the heritage value of a historic

building. (Foundation)

Finally, a reseau analysis examines buildings in a network or relational fashion. As

identified earlier, one weakness of contemporary heritage policy and analysis is its too

narrow focus on the physical building or monument, while ignoring its symbiotic relationship

with the community, city or nation. Similar to a „Conzenian‟ urban morphology approach

(see Pinho:104 for an explanation), it is important to understand how “individual features are

connected historically and geographically: how they fit into the wider historical landscape”

(Whitehand:6948). Only then can we understand the historical value of a place. By extending

the inquiry beyond the structure itself and its past and present relationships within the urban

network, we can gain a better understanding of the building and processes at work.

Vancouver Heritage Policy Summary and Ming Sun

In 1986 the City of Vancouver formalized its heritage conservation program. The

objective was to “protect, restore and rehabilitate” as many historically valuable heritage sites

as possible (Vancouver,2013:np). That heritage policy, which still exists today, consists of

three sections: a municipal heritage register, management tools, and public awareness and

education. Serving the public awareness and education component is the Vancouver Heritage

Foundation, an organization appointed by Council. The Foundation defines “heritage

property” as follows:

The heritage register is a listing of properties that are considered to be of heritage

value. Properties are ranked and either assigned an A, B, or C rating (Vancouver,2014a:np).

Owners of registered property must adhere to, and also benefit from, from various restrictions

7

and rewards (policy carrots and sticks) ranging from exterior alteration limitations to the

availability of certain bonuses. The latter range from density bonuses for developers to

heritage revitalization agreements (HRA‟s) for owners wishing revitalize their property via

creative infill or increased density configuration (Vancouver,2014b:np). Properties with an A

heritage rating (considered exemplary in their heritage value) must have Council approval

prior to receiving a demolition permit. B- and C-registered properties can be removed from

the register at any time if the property owner decides to demolish (Vancouver, 2014a:np),

however owners will simply be asked to consider other options before a demolition permit is

issued.

In addition to the heritage register and developer incentives, there are two programs

available for heritage buildings in the Downtown East-Side (DTES). These are the Heritage

Building Rehabilitation Program (HBRP) and the Heritage Façade Rehabilitation Program

(HFRP). HBRP incentives include facade grants, property tax exemption, and transferable

bonus density (Vancouver,2013:np). The transferable bonus density program is currently on

hold given the surplus of unused density from previous years of transfer. Facade grants and

property tax exemptions are only available in certain blocks in the DTES, Gastown and

certain parts of Chinatown.

The Heritage Foundation acts as the educational arm of the policy and promotes

public awareness on the value of heritage properties. The organization shares many of the

concerns mentioned in the initial part of this paper. Sadly, an educational body has no legal

clout. The actual power to prohibit demolition or offer incentives rests with the municipal

government. The latter‟s mandate is to protect property value and encourage development

potential (Vancouver, 2013:np). The policy is currently under review and will be re-examined

in 2015.

8

The HRAs have resulted in many heritage facades being incorporated into new urban

developments, and protection programs being implemented in Chinatown and Gastown.

Individual buildings are kept aesthetically intact – with their use completely revamped. This

is consistent with the faccia approach I have described (the City of Vancouver‟s current

model) where physical form trumps any regard for previous use, social, or cultural values.

Who benefits from the current policy? In the faccia approach to heritage, consumptive

and exchange values are paramount. The greatest benefits flow to developers, property

owners, the City, and members of the growth machine coalition. As Logan and Molotch

eloquently wrote: “[The] use values of a majority are sacrificed for the exchange gains of the

few” (Logan:230).

Located across from Oppenheimer Park, in the heart of Vancouver‟s Downtown East-

Side, the two-storey Ming Sun building stood for over 122 years. Like many buildings of this

vintage, it saw a wide variety of tenants, a few changes of owners, and more than its share of

significant cultural history (Friends:np). This deeply historical building was owned and

operated by the Ming Sun Benevolent Association and had strong ties to the Chinese Head

Tax and Chinese Exclusion Act of 1923. It was initially owned by the Uchida family – of

national and local significance – and was a feature of the aesthetic and cultural fabrics of the

300-400 block of Powell. Almost intact, it represented the pre-war Japanese-Canadian

community (Lemire, 2013:1).

In 2013 the building was the site of a thriving artist‟s cooperative, a community

centre, and nine units of below market rental housing for seniors (Friends, 2014:np). It hosted

various cultural events, street parties, and was a gathering place for members of the Chinese-

and Japanese-Canadian communities. While not a conventionally “beautiful” structure

(personal observations, 2013-14), culturally and socially it was undeniably valuable, playing

9

a role in the cultural reproduction of society and communicating the rich and sometimes dark

history of the community to future generations. It was an obvious candidate for both a corpus

(body), and reseau (network) approach to heritage valuation. The Ming Sun building was

easily a special and important place.

In late 2014 the City of Vancouver hastily demolished the building adjacent to Ming

Sun, hours after reports of a cracked wall appeared in the structure. The demolition was swift

and immediate. The City felt the “public safety risk” required the building to be torn down

without any consultation or due process (Friends, 2014:np). During the rapid demolition of its

neighbour, crews damaged the brick facade of the Ming Sun, causing it to become partially

pulled off. Close on the heels of this event, the City ordered the Ming Sun building

demolished, citing disrepair and the immediate threat to public safety. According to planner

Andy Yan, “It seems very odd to see a demolition order by the City on something that really

didn't have anything (significantly) wrong with the building. It's a veneer wall, it's not

structural” (Ball:np). Nonetheless, the City stood firm. The building was boarded up,

residents evicted and retail tenants displaced, with all personal belongings left behind.

Response from community members and local and international media was swift and

concise. The City was forced to delay the demolition order as public pressure mounted,

meanwhile the City insisting it had done nothing wrong.

I‟ve chosen the Ming Sun building to illustrate the disconnect between stated policy

intention and action. The City‟s heritage policy might appear to endorse the protection,

preservation, and revitalization of significant places. In practice, this is far from the truth. The

Ming Sun building never stood for the values of a growth-machine-oriented municipality.

Consequently, it received no benefit from the growth-machine, facidist-oriented heritage

policy. Had the building stood in upscale Yaletown, home to members of the “creative class,”

10

the result might have been different. The fact that the Ming Sun‟s community constituted

marginalized members of society, in an area the City is eager to “revitalize,” might be more

than coincidental.

Conclusion

Heritage in the urban built form is an important area of study. Having reviewed the

contemporary approaches to urban heritage studies and policies in the literature, I have

attempted to suggest a new framework of geographical analysis that could guide our

understanding and approach. My framework is meant to identify some of the frailties in the

current regime, as evident in both the literature and contemporary heritage planning and

management. These frailties flows from the lack of community involvement in the heritage

process, the lack of social analysis in policy practice and literature, the tendency to ignore

relational networks, the overly narrow focus on individual buildings, and the over-reliance on

any “expert” opinion that fails to recognize the tenets of communicative planning. I have

proposed a geographically scalar approach that analyzes preservation policy and assets

identification based on three levels: faccia (face), corpus (body), and reseau (network). I

believe this concept could be further explored and developed.

As a case study I have briefly summarized the major components of the City of

Vancouver‟s heritage policy and its implementation in the case of the historically significant

Ming Sun building (see figure 1) in order to illustrate how the City‟s policy could be regarded

as facidist in practice (while appearing at least superficially to be otherwise).

Had the City adopted a more thorough corpus (body) or reseau (network) approach to

its heritage policy, we would have seen an entirely different – and more socially just – result.

11

Fig 1 - Ming Sun Association outside their building in 1975 (Photo Courtesy: Friends of Ming Sun)

12

References:

Ball, David P. (December 9, 2013). “Demolition Halted for Japantown Building.” 24

Hours Vancouver. (Web) Retrieved from

http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/2013/12/09/demolition-halted-for-japantown-building

(Accessed November 01, 2014)

Campbell, Scott. 1996. Green cities, growing cities, just cities? Urban planning and the

contradictions of sustainable development. Journal of the American Planning

Association 62,3: 296-312

City of Vancouver. (2014a) How To Read the Register. Retrieved

from http://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/find-a-registered-heritage-

building-site-or-tree.aspx (Accessed October 30, 2014)

City of Vancouver. (2014b) How We Protect Heritage Properties. Retrieved

from http://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/how-we-protect-heritage-

properties.aspx (Accessed October 30, 2014)

City of Vancouver. (2013, November). Policy Report: Urban Structure. Retrieved from

http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20131204/documents/ptec8.pdf

(Accessed October 30, 2014)

Foundation, Vancouver Heritage. (2014). Heritage Information. Retrieved

from http://www.vancouverheritagefoundation.org/learn-with-us/heritage-

information/ (Accessed October 30, 2014)

Friends of Ming Sun. (2014). Restore the Ming Sun Uchida Building in Vancouver.

(Web) Retrieved from http://friendsof439.wordpress.com/ (Accessed October 25,

2014)

Jonas, A.E.G., McCann E., & Thomas M. 2015 (In Press). Cities for Whom? The

Contours and Commitments of Critical Urban Geography. In Jonas, A.E.G., E.

McCann, & M. Thomas, Urban Geography: A Critical Introduction. Malden,

MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Lemire, Roger. (2013, December). Letter to Mayor Robertson and City of Vancouver

Councillors. Retrieved from

http://friendsof439.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/nnmcc-letter-to-city-of-

vancouver1.jpg (Accessed November 02,2014)

Logan, J.R. & Molotch, H.L. 2002 [1987]. The City as a Growth Machine. In Fainstein,

S.S. & Campbell, S. Readings in Urban Theory. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell,

pp.199-238

Nasser, N. (2003). Planning for urban heritage places: Reconciling conservation, tourism,

and sustainable development. Journal of Planning Literature, 17(4), 467-479.

doi:10.1177/0885412203017004001

13

Olsson, K. (2008). Citizen input in urban heritage management and planning: A

quantitative approach to citizen participation. The Town Planning Review, 79(4),

371-394. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.proxy.lib.sfu.ca/stable/40112766

Pinho, Paulo & Oliveira, Vítor (2009) Different approaches in the study of urban form,

Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban

Sustainability, 2:2, 103-125, DOI: 10.1080/17549170903083676

Razzu, G. (2005). Urban redevelopment, cultural heritage, poverty and redistribution:

The case of old accra and adawso house. Habitat International, 29(3), 399-419.

doi: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.sfu.ca/10.1016/j.habitatint.2003.12.002

Ryberg-Webster, S., & Kinahan, K. L. (2014). Historic preservation and urban

revitalization in the twenty-first century. Journal of Planning Literature, 29(2), 119-

139. doi:10.1177/0885412213510524

Tweed, C., & Sutherland, M. (2007). Built cultural heritage and sustainable urban

development. Landscape and Urban Planning, 83(1), 62-69.

doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.sfu.ca/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.05.008

Whitehand, J. W. R., & Gu, K. (2010). Conserving urban landscape heritage: A

geographical approach. Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences, 2(5), 6948-

6953. doi: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.sfu.ca/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.05.047