Learning from local disputation: Making and recognizing the significance of living Historic Urban Landscapes?

Ref.: 178
Key theme: 02 Functional integrity of historic urban landscapes
Date of reception: 13/11/2008

AUTHORS (*Main author)

BINH NGUYEN, Thanh * (Australia) - Deakin University

ABSTRACT

In 2008 there was a great disputation focusing on the Hanoi Christian community's request for the return of two pieces of their former land, one near the Hanoi Cathedral [Nhà th Ln Hà Ni] and other near Thai Ha Church [Nhà th Thái Hà]. After a series of unsuccessful struggles by the community, these lands had been converted into two public parks despite, no doubt, their continuing to hold special religious significance. Apart from differences in political and religious thinking involved in the contestation, the main discussion has revolved around historical explanation of the lands and associated elements. As with many other historical discussions in Vietnam, there was no clear judgment, and the responsible authority decided to use its power to solve the problem, leaving history as detached issue. The authority proceeded to change the physical setting of the sites and add new meaning and function. There was no official encouragement to discuss related historical issues or the community's grievance about the perceived failure to find a fair solution, as in some opinions these matters are too politically sensitive and could only undermine social integrity and national stability.

A number of important theoretical and practical concerns relating to HULs and their heritage significance are highlighted by these Hanoi case studies. How is the heritage significance of such disputed HULs to be defined, evaluated, protected and managed, bearing in mind that urban landscapes are not frozen but continue to evolve. Will we follow the official guidance of the responsible authorities under the name of social integrity and national stability? Or will we follow other more `universal' guidance, such as the advice emanating from UNESCO and ICOMOS, despite possible conflict with the official advice? What happens to the historical significance that is attached to these sites but that has not been fully recognized in the official version of national or urban heritage? Will it be destroyed or continue to survive despite discouragement? If some historically significant elements are retained, what are the reasons?

Through an analysis of discussions about these case studies of contestation, which have been mostly published on the Internet, the paper aims to demonstrate the range of intellectual discussions and judgments regarding the historical significance of the two Hanoi sites. As a tentative conclusion, the paper argues that activities within the HUL, rather than buildings, are the starting point for the formation of significance. Buildings hold a secondary role as symbols marking a city's social, cultural and political evolution, and often have multiple set of meanings. They can also be created in ways that give them aesthetic significance. However intervention focusing on building elements alone has a restricting effect on the recognition of significance, at least as officially defined, since this is largely the expression of power and mainstream ideology. As a suggestion for such 'living' HULs, activities related to particular sites need to be considered as the machine that generates and changes historical significance.
This 'tentative conclusion' may provide a useful hypothesis for developing a methodology for analyzing and evaluating the HUL. It raises, however, a further question as to whether we should allow the living communities to hi-jack and repossess the past to give added meaning to current historical significance. This in turn focuses attention on our definition of `heritage'. Is this something that is essentially defined in terms of how people today value the past, or does the past have its own independent and intrinsic value?

REFERENCES