René SEYFARTH: Regeneration for whom: Post-industrial heritage as hegemonic claim for space

My PhD-project deals with the nexus between heritage and local cultural identity as well as with the thereby produced exclusions within the use and interpretation of urban space. This issue will be addressed by examining architecture, since architecture is frequently perceived as an evidence for local identity in past and present. Urban planning policies often emphasise the need of the inhabitants for identification with the urban space, in many cases by referring to local history and the creation of “meeting places”. But it is rarely questioned whether the references to local traditions, history and the construction of a cultural identity have disadvantageous impacts on society as a whole or on minority or rather marginalised groups in special.

Post-industrial cities are concerned with dynamic processes of the re-interpretation of urban space since their image(s), and one could say, also their right to exist is questioned. Formerly prosperous cities became with their economic decline depreciated and are perceived as an agglomeration of (social, economic, ecological,...) problems. It is not that these problems have not been existed while the economy was prospering – it is more a change of the perception of and debate on post-industrial urban spaces that have been changed. My project is dealing with these debates on change: which heritage is mobilised, which future is projected and not at least: by whom? I will further analyse the claims for urban space (e.g. the differing strategies of urban regeneration in post-industrial cities) and which inclusions and exclusions are produced by these claims and changes. Within this scope I am focussing on contested heritage sites and minorised positions.
Workspaces and industrial sites for example are increasingly considered as important part of the cultural heritage of a city and/or region, especially since the 1970s. However, the importance and significance of architecture is revised from time to time: both as a cultural technique in general and with regard to particular buildings. Accordingly, the strategies of regeneration are different and are often proceeding simultaneously within one city. While the demolition of one industrial building another one is turned into a museum or centre for performing arts, re-vitalised as workspace for production, rededicated as apartment or office space and still other buildings are squatted or are dilapidating without any use. In any case these post-industrial spaces cannot be understood only as of the built environment but also as imagination, intervention and medium, and be it at least as a sign of economic decline. It is part of the social space not only as physical building but also as an object of public and individual perception, of controversy and rivalling interests. This involvement into the social sphere of a city makes architecture and especially those which is marked as “heritage” part within the formation of cultural identity.

Following Kaschuba who criticised the thesis about the homogenising vigours of globalisation and the re-orientation to regional contexts as an opposite tendency to this trend (Kaschuba 2001) and Belina with his deep scepticism about explanations based on culture and tradition (Belina 2003) it should be discussed if there are further possibilities to explain these phenomena and the underlying motivations. As Böhme noted, the production of space (e.g. by architecture as well as by declaring architectural heritage) does not only serve to fulfil a human need for orientation or identity but is also responsible for the suppression of reality/realities (Böhme 1995). Regarded from this perspective, the commodification of urban space in favour of anticipated needs (e.g. of consumers, tourists, or prospective investors) also leads to a scarce attention for differing needs, especially concerning social minorities. For this reason the desire for a distinguishable local identity may just result in an advancing spatial homogenisation and displacement processes like gentrification (Wirth and Freestone 2003).
Taking into account the close relatedness of heritage, tradition, historiography and commemoration – notably by or referring to architecture – and the maintenance of elite formation and hierarchy (Philo and Kearns 1993; Fezer and Heyden 2004) it is important to argue with the inclusive as well as the exclusive potential of policies for post-industrial sites and areas (cf. Lewi 2005; Birke and Larsen 2007; Tan 2008). I hope to contribute to the European Cities Seminar by demonstrating by means of examples some aspects of what this question includes.

Bibliographical reference

Belina, Bernd (2003): Kultur? Macht und Profit! - Zu Kultur, Ökonomie und Politik im öffentlichen Raum und in der radical geography. In: Gebhardt, Hans; Reuber, Paul und Wolkersdorf, Günter (Ed.): Kulturgeographie. Aktuelle Ansätze und Entwicklungen. Heidelberg/Berlin, Spektrum Akademischer Verlag: 83-97.
Birke, Peter and Larsen, Chris Holmsted (Ed.); (2007): Besetze deine Stadt! - Bz din by! Häuserkämpfe und Stadtentwicklung in Kopenhagen. Berlin/Hamburg, Assoziation A.
Böhme, Gernot (1995): Atmosphäre. Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp.
Fezer, Jesko and Heyden, Mathias (2004): Hier entsteht. Strategien partizipativer Architektur und räumlicher Aneignung. In: Fezer, Jesko und Heyden, Mathias (Ed.): Hier entsteht. Strategien partizipativer Architektur und räumlicher Aneignung. Berlin, b_books: 13-31.
Kaschuba, Wolfgang (2001): Geschichtspolitik und Identitätspolitik. Nationale und ethnische Diskurse im Kulturvergleich. In: Binder, Beate; Kaschuba, Wolfgang und Niedermüller, Peter (Ed.): Inszenierung des Nationalen. Geschichte, Kultur und Politik der Identitäten am Ende des 20. Jahrhunderts. Köln, Böhlau. Band 7, Alltag & Kultur: 19-42.
Lewi, Hannah (2005): Whose heritage: The contested site of the Swan Brewery. Fabrications 15 (2): 43-62.
Philo, Chris and Kearns, Gerry (1993): Culture, history, capital. A critical introduction to selling places. In: Philo, Chris und Kearns, Gerry (Ed.): Selling places. The city as cultural capital, past and present. Oxford: 1-32.
Tan, Pelin (2008): Istanbul: Neighbourhood resistance and the counter-cultural space. dérive. Zeitschrift für Stadtforschung 33: 15-19.
Waldvogel, Florian (2003): Culture Jamming: Die visuelle Grammatik des Widerstands. In: Babias, Marius und Waldvogel, Florian (Ed.): Die offene Stadt. Essen/Dortmund, Kokerei Zollverein/Stiftung Industriedenkmalpflege und Geschichtskultur: 72-82.
Wirth, Renee and Freestone, Robert (2003): Tourism, heritage and authenticity: State-assisted cultural commodification in suburban Sydney, Australia. Perspectivas Urbanas / Urban Perspectives 3: 1-10.