As part of its master’s program in Urban Planning and Urban Design (MUP/MUD), the Department of Architecture and Design held its annual City Debates Seminar in April, at which it discussed the different facets of “Urban Heritage and the Politics of the Present: Perspectives from the Middle East.” Mindful of the current challenges touching on urban heritage, its definition, and environment, this year’s City Debates focused on four major themes in its lecture series: Global Forces, Local Claims; Emerging State Initiatives; Politics of the Present; and Heritage in Practice. The seminar opened on April 6 with the Global Forces, Local Claims theme, in which three lecturers addressed definitions and perspectives related to urban heritage. Oliver Kögler, a PhD student from the University of Heidelberg, gave a lecture on “Post-war Heritage Projects in Beirut: Perspectives from Human Geography,” in which he pinpointed the ambiguities related to the concept of urban heritage as “a culturally constructed yet politically motivated concept.” Thus, he highlighted the importance of understanding and bringing together the different values of heritage in order to better grasp this intricate notion. From the artistic and socio-political, to the economic, then to academic values, “difference becomes a valuable commodity and the production of culture an integral part of capital accumulation.” According to Kögler, this theoretical and normative logic failed in the Lebanese context in restoring the Beirut Central District, owing to the domination of economic considerations in the planning of cultural heritage projects—undertaken with a consideration of economic values at the expense of cultural needs. Howayda Al-Harithy, chairperson of the AUB Department of Architecture and Design, helped elucidate an international dimension to the problematic issue of cultural heritage. In this perspective, heritage is portrayed as a universal mankind possession and its maintenance entails global intervention and funding support. One problem is that decisions related to cultural heritage become highly politicized and devoid of any consideration for the socio-political and academic values of heritage. Taking Tripoli and Cairo as case studies, Al-Harithy proposed that locals be given a say in major centralized decisions related to heritage sustenance. She also proposed an empowerment of the local population in order to stimulate cultural heritage regeneration, which is being inhibited by the tourism industry. Eventually, Al-Harithy concluded, “We should invest in people to continue to produce culture; and tourism should add a component of interaction with the people of today, not only with the masterpieces of yesterday.” Another guest speaker on the same theme was Omar Razzaz, manager of the World Bank’s office in Lebanon, who added a practical aspect to the debate. He believes that international organizations should be entrusted with encouraging cultural renovation, since the concept has become more and more internationalized. Locality doesn’t solve the problem of implementation, he said, and “is likely to be more biased because it shows only one vision of community, thus eliminating many other parts involved in the building of the identity.” States should ally with international funding organizations in order to provide for the lack of markets that undervalue the worth of heritage. And although heritage restoration policies might carry dispersed benefits and concentrated costs, trade-offs occur. Therefore, Razzaz opts for economic considerations, such as the sustenance of investment through tourism revenues. Responding to the seminar’s rich introduction on the basic issues and considerations of cultural heritage decision-making, the audience showed interest in receiving further information related to the practical constraints facing policy-making. Subsequently, the panel of speakers agreed on the need to invest in a comprehensive economic process that goes beyond mere physical rehabilitation and introduces a people-participatory model of negotiations on cultural heritage, which should lead the way towards a more dynamic process of cultural regeneration. In the second session of City Debates 2005, held on April 12, three speakers addressed the theme, Emerging State Initiatives. Allocating weight to the role played by the state as a crucial initiator of heritage renovation programs, they shed light on the practical impediments states face while designing, implementing, and evaluating heritage-related policies. Rami Farouk Daher, assistant professor of architecture at the Jordan University of Science and Technology and consultant for several heritage conservation and environmental management projects, presented a talk, “Swift Urban Heritage Donor Recipes and Neo-Liberal Restructuring.” Using Amman and Beirut as case studies, he outlined similarities in the practices of the respective states in marginalizing the concepts of past and heritage. His criticisms touched mainly on the privatization of urban development and the involvement of multinational corporations, a practice which leads to a loss of national identity and a mold of culture that satisfies real estate investment, large-scale urban restructuring, and tourism and gives little regard to historical and civilization-related considerations. Such inappropriate state policies, said Daher, are becoming an issue for public contestation, taking into consideration the nature of the projects, the huge amount of funding, and the modest outcomes that result. The next speaker was Nabil Itani, currently in charge of the urban components in the Project Management Unit of Lebanon’s Cultural Heritage and Urban Development Project (CHUD). In his talk, “The Legal Framework as Preservation Strategy: A Comparative Look at the CHUD Approach in Lebanon,” he outlined the components and objectives of the state-initiated CHUD project, whose aim is to improve, conserve, and manage the different historical and cultural layers of Lebanon’s rich heritage. This will entail the rehabilitation of historic city centers and infrastructure, the conservation and management of archaeological sites, and institutional strengthening. The task, however, is being impeded by the archaic legal and administrative systems in place. From a legal perspective, the system still functions according to old building laws and centralized work permits, making the process a very lengthy one. As other specialists in the field, Itani calls for a simpler and more decentralized process, with clear guidelines and involving specialists with knowledge of the specificities and diversities of the urban tissue, as well as respect for the traditional architectural typologies that are a must for a successful heritage restoration process. The second session ended with a case study on Ain Sofar, a Lebanese city next to Aley, presented by Sylvia Shorto, professor at the Department of Architecture and Design at AUB and a researcher on hybrid domestic space in Lebanon. Shorto defined heritage as a social action and the process of its preservation as a consensual decision to be made simultaneously by the government and the people. As this consensus is absent in Lebanon, the need for spontaneous initiatives and commitment by the people arises. Shorto, in exhibiting photographs of Ain Sofar and explaining its uniqueness and charm, said, “The protection of historic structures is a way to safeguard future rights to reinterpret the past.” The remaining two sessions of City Debates 2005—on the themes of Politics of the Present and Heritage in Practice—were held on April 20 and April 26.
|
|||||||
|
