Bahareh Amali
Graduate School of Social Science
August 2014
Master Thesis
Title
Framing Heritage: A case study of Haringpakkerstoren
Student
Bahareh Amali
Programme
Urban and Regional Planning
Department
Graduate School of Social Sciences, University of Amsterdam
Supervisor
dhr. Federico Savini
Second Reader
dhr. Jochem de Vries
Student Number
10635084
Student Email
bahareh.amali@gmail.com
Date of Submission
August 2014
Dedicated to the memory of my loving father, Behrooz…
Preface
The case of Haringpakkerstoren and the controversies surrounding its reconstruction particularly caught my attention as I have been captivated by the replica of the tower during the Amsterdam Light Festival in December 2013. This experience of interacting with this structure made of scaffolding and light carved unforgettable memories in my mind. For me, this piece reiterated the power of art and architecture by creating a sense of a place in an urban environment where memories are made and collective experiences are created.
Acknowledgments
I would like to take this opportunity to thank and extend my special gratitude to:
Mariknke Steenhuis for her influential lecture under the title of Context of Industry: Feelings and memories that planted the seed of the idea for my thesis theme. My fellow classmates at Urban and Regional Planning program 2013/2014, Marie Morel and Mirjam van Es for immersing me into discussions from which the original idea for my thesis is coming from
Dr. Willem Salet, designer and artist Todd van Hulzen, building archaeologist Dr. Gabri van Tussenbroek, architect Paul van Well and senior urban planner Errik Buursink for their time and very informative conversations regarding the theoretical and architectural issues pertaining to the case of Haringpakkerstoren and other cultural heritage sites in the Netherlands
Reneé Sterk, student counsellor at UvA and Dr. Bas Hissink Muller, my thesis coordinator, as their sincere sensitivity helped me immensely to feel supported in the Netherlands and at UvA
My thesis supervisor, Dr. Federico Savini whose motivational and supportive comments encouraged me to believe in myself and my project. Anita Blessing who guided me through the preliminary steps of this thesis and my second reader Dr. Jochem de Vries
My friend Pim, who helped me enormously and patiently with countless translations Kristin McIlhenney, my mentor who encouraged me to pursue my academic dreams
My family who always supported me in every step of my life, by creating a calm and positive environment
Zoran, whom, since the idea of pursuing a master’s degree was just a dream, stood by me, encouraged me and supported me morally, emotionally and intellectually
The fundamental dilemma in the field of heritage planning is that historic sites hold different and at times overlapping functions in the modern world. On one hand, historic sites serve as an economic asset, providing a source for variety of commercial activities. While on the other hand, these sites provide a socio-psychological resource, creating a sense of familiarity with the environment and a sense of belonging for the local residents. The coexistence of multiple functions of heritage sites in a fragmented and multi-stakeholder society poses unique challenges in the field of heritage and spatial planning. The challenge lies in the existence of conflicting views on the criteria selection for preservation of heritage among various stakeholders. Heritage planning in the Netherlands is not immune to these challenges either. The increasing reliance of cultural heritage sites and monumental buildings on the financial support from the private sector has opened up possibilities for commercial exploitation of heritage sites. Following the conceptual framework of the social constructionist and concepts of framing and symbolic markers, this research will demonstrate how established cultural norms have been used as a vehicle to frame 'heritage' and create spatial planning projects, in order to stimulate economic activities.
Chapter 1: Introduction …... 10
Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework …...13
2.1. Social Construction of the Past …... 13
2.1.1. History of Cultural Heritage Recognition. …... .14
2.1.2. Views on Urban Heritage Preservation. …...28
2.1.3. Multiple Functions of Heritage …... 23
2.2. Addressing the Past Through Symbolic Markers...27
Chapter 3: Research Design and Methods …...31
3.1.Research Question and Hypothesis ... ...32
3.2. Haringpakkerstoren as a Case Study... 33
3.3. Frame Analysis …... 34
Chapter 4: Reconstruction of Haringpakkerstoren... 37
4.1. The Walled City …...38
4.2. Haringpakkerstoren Reconstruction Initiative …... 48
Chapter5: Results and Discussion ... 51
5.1. Frame Analysis and Results …... 52
5.2. Conclusions from the Results …... 68
Chapter 6: Conclusions...70
References... 71
Appendix I: Sources for Content Analysis... 75
Chapter 1: Introduction
The fundamental dilemma in the field of heritage planning is that historic sites hold different and at times overlapping functions in the modern world. On one hand, historic sites serve as an economic asset, providing a source for variety of commercial activities. While on the other hand, these sites provide a socio-psychological resource, creating a sense of familiarity with the environment and a sense of belonging for the local residents (Ashworth, 1994). The great economic value of monuments and historic buildings has been known to the governments ever since the 17th century. However, in contemporary post industrial, society characterized by the rise of the service economy, the commodification of historic sites has led to fundamental changes in the orientation of what constitutes as heritage(Ashworth, 1994). Gregory Ashworth, professor of heritage management at the University of Groningen, notes this commodification process. He explains, history as a commodity has evolved from concerns for preserving historic artifacts into an industry, which heritage tourism is one vivid example of (Ashworth & Tunbridge, 1999). Aside from providing a resource opportunity for tourism industry, heritage as a product has also been used as a tool for city marketing (Rooijendijk, 2004). The particular architectural style and nostalgic feel, unique to each historic city, has been used as a selling point for place making and promotion of the city as a suitable location for real estate investment, enterprise and other commercial and economic activities. Moreover, heritage has also been used as a catalyst for urban regeneration and redevelopment schemes (Akram et. al, 2011; Janssen, et al, 2012; Zahirovic-Herbert & Chatterjee, 2011).
The latter function, heritage as socio-psychological resource, provides a sense of cultural-identity for the local residents. Cultural identity and sense of belonging rest upon the features of town spaces and unique patterns of the streets. Individual monuments and vernacular structures at times function as public amenities, creating a focal point and a sense of direction for the inhabitants. The particular architectural style and the unique urban composition of historic cities form a sense of nostalgia, pleasure and pride for the local residents (Tweed & Sutherland, 2007) and create a sense of place-identity and collective memory for the local inhabitants (Hague & Jenkins, 2005). This function of heritage lies at the core of what Ashworth (1994) refers to as 'the intangible idea of feeling'. Due to the importance of this topic, a number of scholars have noted the eminent impact of cultural heritage sites on place-identity as well as quality of life and social well-being of the inhabitants of historic places (Luís, 2013; Tweed & Sutherland, 2007; Van der Valk, 2013).
The coexistence of multiple functions of heritage as an economic asset and as socio-psychological resource, along with its usages as a political tool, poses unique challenges in the field of heritage and
on the selection criteria for preservation of heritage (Janssen, et al, 2012). Meanwhile, over the last decade, the increasing reliance of cultural heritage sites and monumental buildings on the financial support from the private sector have led to the commercial exploitation of heritage sites. This situation is visible in many historic cities in Western Europe, particularly in places where cultural heritage has been subject to commercialization. For instance, the historic inner-cities of Prague and Dubrovnik have lost their original function as public places for social and cultural local activities, and have turned into theme parks and tourist amusement areas.
The preservation and planning of cultural heritage in the Netherlands faces a similar challenge. The contemporary socio-political situation in which the Netherlands finds itself, makes the decision-making process over what to preserve selective and controversial. Over the last decade, the reduction of the government's role and its involvement in the field of spatial planning has led to an increase in proliferation of institutions and stakeholders involved in the preservation of cultural heritage (Dembski & Salet, 2010; Salet & Thornely 2007). In the Netherlands, on the national level, three ministries1 are
responsible for matters regarding cultural history and built heritage sites. At the same time, on the regional level, various actors are involved in the development process of Amsterdam's inner-city. From individual residents to public institutions, from small businesses to large companies, and from policy making institutions to corporate entrepreneurs all, in one way or another, contribute to the formation of policies on future developments, and thus shape the character of the urban fabric. However, neither the power dynamic, nor the objectives of stakeholders involved are equal. Legislative powers are held by public-sectors and local authorities, while major investments in rehabilitation of historic structures are done by private or semi-private sectors (Smook, 2004). The existence of multiple ad-hoc organizations, all with their own agenda in mind, poses a danger of commercial exploitation to heritage sites. The visual dimensions and aesthetic values of heritage sites are no longer counted as the primary objectives for the selection and preservation of historic sites. Economic factors, such as international tourism market, enhancement of local economy and creation of entrepreneurship opportunities, have become the determining factors for the selection of what to preserve (Akram et, al. 2011; Fery & Steiner 2011). This situation poses barriers and puts the socio-cultural function of heritage at stake. The problem is that strategic behaviors in heritage planning are oftentimes propelled by the dominant power of the private sector (ie. the economic forces). As a result of this the socio-cultural function of heritage receives insufficient attention.
The hypothesis of this thesis is built upon this problem. If the objectives of dominant powers are to
1 Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, Ministry of Public Housing and environment, Ministry of Agriculture, nature Management and Fisheries. (source, Belvedere )
exploit the economic function of heritage, then the policies are likely to be constructed in such ways that situates the economic necessities and the added value of heritage in the center of the agenda; consequently the socio-cultural value of heritage may be hindered. This is because policies are shaped to fulfill the objectives and interests of the dominant power. The aim of this research is to investigate the impact of economic forces on cultural heritage and the future of Amsterdam's historic inner-city. The formulated research question for this thesis is:
How do economic priorities shape the socio-cultural function of heritage in the Amsterdam's city planning process ?
The case of Haringpakkerstoren has been selected as a spatial planning project in the inner-city of Amsterdam to investigate the extent in which motivations for its reconstruction and/or for its cancellation have been influenced by commercial forces. Following the conceptual framework of the social constructionist and concepts of framing and symbolic markers, this research will demonstrate how established cultural norms have been used as a vehicle to frame 'heritage' and create spatial planning projects, in order to stimulate economic activities. The initiative for the new urban development project on the conjunction of Singel and Prins Hendrikkade, was done in such ways that situated the project as a continuum of the cultural urban renewal movement of the late 1970's in Amsterdam that wanted to preserve the historic cityscape of the inner-city. Haringpakkerstoren was one of the seven iconic clock towers designed by Hendrick de Keyser, seventeenth century Dutch architect, and has been used as a symbolic marker and an integral element of cultural identity. Thus, its reconstruction has been presented to be vital to the preservation of the historic cityscape.
There is an existing body of scholarly work focusing on how economic priorities have changed or at times even hindered the social cohesion of historic cities. However, the framing process and the use of symbolic markers as a tool for legitimization of preservation plans seems to have been overlooked. Because, change in policies typically follows the professed beliefs and viewpoints of the dominant power, an investigation into the viewpoints of stakeholders and private actors is believed to shed lights on motivations behind the selection of particular projects and provide clues for understanding motivations behind change in actions. The primary contribution of this research is the addition of framing analysis to the scholarly literature focusing on the impact of market-led preservation strategies on the future of cultural heritage in historic cities.
Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework
2.1. Social Construction of the Past
This subsection is organized into three parts. The first part presents a brief history of the development of cultural heritage recognition in Western Europe. This chronological overview reveals that heritage is a socially constructed phenomena and that dominant socio-political world-views and economic conditions are the main factors in shaping the ideological perceptions towards heritage.
In the second part, a summary of different views on preservation practices will be laid out. This summary will illustrate that not only the values, but also the methods and strategies used for preservation, undergo redefinition process. The concepts of 'fake' and 'authenticity' are socially constructed and are products of the social consciousness. Furthermore, this section looks into the case study of historic city of Pingyao (Wang, 2011), as an example where in order to meet the economic objectives, preservation practices hindered the authenticity of local identity.
Lastly, the commodification process of heritage as described by G.J. Ashworth, will be presented. The three main uses of heritage, (i.e. heritage as an economic asset, heritage a political tool, and heritage as a socio-psychological resource)in a multi stakeholder society, will further illustrate the challenge of planning heritage.
2.1.1. History of Cultural Heritage Recognition
The concept of 'heritage', as understood today, is a byproduct of contemporary interpretations of the past. History transforms into a concept through narratives. It takes on a particular meaning and obtains an added value. However, not all that is from the past is automatically considered as heritage. Heritage takes on its meaning based on dominant ideologies, world-views and perceptions of the present time. From this point of view, it can be inferred that heritage is a subjective and selective process (Ashworth, 1994). For an object or a built structure to be considered as heritage, it should first be recognized as such by the appropriate stakeholder. In other words, recognition is a preexisting requirement for heritage. Rautenberg (1998) suggests, as referenced by Tweet & Southerland (2007), that cultural heritage structures take on their status of recognition in two ways. Some historic sites gain their heritage status by appropriation, while in some other cases heritage status is assigned by designation. Heritage by appropriation generally emerges from the cultural ties that a community exhibits towards an individual building or a historic site. The cultural value of the historic site is recognized by the members of the community, even though the recognition may not be official. In contrast, heritage by designation follows a bureaucratic, top-down procedure, with little room for any community involvement; thus, oftentimes the selection of a cultural heritage site or structure is predictable and the decisions are rarely contentious (Tweed & Southerland, 2007). See Figure 1. Aside from the purist archaeological values, economic and socio-political objectives are among the main driving forces for the heritage designation by the state. Heritage tourism, one of the most significant and fastest growing sectors of tourism industry as well as a valuable economic asset, has a considerable impact on the decision making and policies regarding heritage planning (Poria , Butler , & Airey, 2003; Ashworth, & Tunbridge, 1999). Therefore, understanding the behavior of heritage tourism, both from the supply perspective (production) and demand perspective (consumption), is essential to the management and planning of historic areas. That is why in recent years sustainable tourism has gained considerable attention among urban planners. Moreover, the socio-political objectives of heritage designation lie beneath a set of ideological frameworks. In this context, as put forth by Ashworth, heritage is a means for legitimization and achievement of certain social goals. The selection and listing of heritage takes place in order to reinforce ideologies of the status quo and maintain the social order in the society. The term 'heritagization' has been used by Ashworth to refer to this idea (Poria & Ashworth, 2009). Ashworth has continuously emphasized that heritagization is a process in which certain aspects of the past are purposefully chosen to be preserved and be presented in such ways as to promote and justify a certain social order. Thus, the selection of what to preserve inevitably contains a political component (Ashworth, 1994; Poria & Ashworth, 2009). Heritage has been used by the state to promote the scene of nationalism and place identity. Therefore, the selection of what
Heritage by Appropriation
As stated earlier there are two categories of heritage: heritage by appropriation and heritage by designation. Heritage by appropriation has merits for its recognition. The significant value of heritage has to be recognized by a group of people (Tweed & Southerland, 2007). This recognition process can take place in a variety of forms. In the first form, objects gain the status of heritage when they are superseded by new technology. Once the original function of an object is no longer in use, the object may gain scarcity/rarity value. It is this obsolescent process that gives the object its value. Thatched cottages and sailing ships are such examples of heritage by obsoleteness (Ashworth & Howard, 1999). Other times, objects may still be in function, but the sheer fact that they have survived a long time confer them with a special value. For instance, antique objects may not necessarily be out of use, yet they are of sufficient age that they merit preservation, their value is in their longevity. Many medieval churches, still in use today, are recognized as valuable, and hence worthwhile safeguarding. Sometimes objects are made with the intention of collection. The value of objects of these kinds is their ensemble and chronologically ordered form (Tweed & Southerland, 2007). These objects are recognized by their particular style and they are a marker of a particular epoch. Record collections and designed postage stamps all belong to this category, where aside from their main function, they also may become collectible items. Often times, heritage takes its definition by association. Certain sites or buildings may not have much architectural value to them per se, but the relation or the particular association that they had with a specific, historical person or event gave them a sentimental value. This form of heritage essentially comes from the fanciful feelings and associations with places (Ashworth & Howard, 1999). For instance, such examples that demonstrate recognition of heritage by association are the birthplace of Picasso in Malaga, or the Goethe House in Frankfurt am Mai, as the buildings have been fully reconstructed (wikipedia). These examples demonstrate the recognition of heritage by appropriateness.
The exposition explained above substantiates the fascination with the past. Lowenthal (1985) holds the view that the romantic nostalgia of the past derives from “a psychological need to know the past as a reference point” (Cited in Nasser, 2003, p. 468). From this perspective, it can be inferred that historical artifacts and monumental structures, aside from their archaeological values, also hold a symbolic significance that represent time. On the other hand, Hewison (1987) views the fascination with the past as “a symptom of national decline and a loss of confidence in the future” (Hewison (1987) cited in Nasser, 2003, p. 468 ). This argument suggests that for Hewison, heritage is an obstruction to future developments. Similarly, Campbell (1996), believes that romanticized past offers little to planning. He argues that “our modern path to sustainability lies forward, not behind us.
Solutions to the problems of preindustrial society are not transferable to those created by modern industrial and postindustrial society” (Campbell, 1996, p. 302, Cited in Nasser, 2003, p. 468).
Nasser points out that although this argument is theoretically acceptable within the sustainability discourse, when it comes to planning in historic places, Hewison's argument does not hold. Nasser (2003) argues that the close ties that historic cities have with the past, make planning for historic urban areas significantly different. Past is seen as an integral element in defining the local identity and sense of place for local inhabitants of historic cities. The evolution of architectural designs and the historic cityscape creates a 'sense of place' that has to be taken into consideration when planning for future developments. The existence of the historic cityscape is a vital element that shapes the local identity and distinct character of the cities, therefore, its protection is essential for the quality of life of its residents, and as such maintaining this link to the past should be part of the sustainable planning agenda. In other words, sustainability in historic cities is dependent on the continuity and preservation of inhabitants way of life. Literature on town planning for historic cities (Ford, 1978 & Lynch, 1960) point out that sense of familiarity with places and sense of orientation is an important element in “maintaining the individual's psychological stability” (Ashworth & Howard, 1999, p. 80). Abrupt changes in the physical environment can cause disorientation and hinder this stability. The fact that cities are growing organs and obtain new needs over time, poses a set of challenges in regards to maintaining the balance between the new developments and preservation of its existing urban fabric.
Heritage by Designation
Conventional 'heritage' is labeled as such by the process of listing and designation. The socio- political, as well as the economic state of affairs in a particular country have a great impact on the selection criteria for listing heritage sites. The recognition of heritage as an economic asset has its roots in the 17th century. Up until then, there was very little historical consciousness about the need to preserve the past structures and more attention was given to the contemporary architecture of the time. With the onset of preservation of art work as collections in the 17th century, interest in the safeguarding of historic objects and structures grew (Ashworth & Howard, 1999; Foucault, 1984 ). At this time, the criteria for selection was based on the uniqueness and aesthetics of the built structures. Safeguarding monuments from the Classical period, not including the Middle Ages, gained attention. By the end of the 17th century and the age of Enlightenment, a redefinition of the meaning of culture took place. During this time, heads of governments in Europe recognized that historic buildings and works of art gave prestige to the city and drew travelers and visitors to the region. With the new perspective towards cultural values, a new interest of the past and preservation of ruins appeared. The era of scientific history, became an era of systematic categorization and collection of works of art. The definition of styles and history of art became important. This advent of systematic categorization
Howard, 1999).
Figure 1. Heritage Recognition (own work)
Destruction occurred during the 18th century due to dynasty wars and the beginning of the industrial revolution. This in turn generated a reaction and brought with itself a redefinition and a new appreciation for heritage preservation. Historic monuments became renowned as a collective goods that belonged to all citizens. Freedom to conserve gained momentum as a demonstration of equal rights among citizens. “The 19th century reaffirmed and spread the idea that heritage was the footprint of the different peoples conveying a sense of ethnic, social or national identity.” (Ashworth & Howard,
1999, p.37). Once again the rapid socio-political and economic changes of twentieth century and the age of industrialization brought dramatic changes to the urban patterns and caused destruction to monuments. At the same time the value of maintaining some links with the past became realized. The combination of nostalgic ideas of the past, as well as political nationalistic ideologies, led to the creation of number of great European national museums. Thus, the first national laws of conservation of heritage appeared. Simultaneously, the appreciation for non-western 'works of art' widened to
include artistic manifestation of non-western art as well as arts from the middle ages. Consequently conservation and restoration of remains from this period gained special interest (Nasser, 2003).
This brief history illustrates that the selection criteria for what to preserve is influenced by the dominant discourses of the present epoch about the past. The value of historic structures is reinterpreted and redefined by the dominant powers in such ways to introduce a new ideology and set the grounds for future actions, policy revision, and land use directions. From this assertion it follows that if the objectives of the dominant power is to fulfill the economic benefits of heritage, then new social reality will be constructed and introduced to the public in such ways that situates the need for economic development as a priority. Likewise, if the dominant power in the governance believes that the unification among members of the society is lacking, then historic structures will be used to create a collective cultural identity and promote national unity. This reinterpretation process is identified as re-framing process through out this research. With the emergence of variety and complex socio-political ideologies as well as economic objectives in the age of globalism, controversies in regards to preservation rise. The following section will elaborate on the development of different views on conservation of heritage structures.
2.1.2. Views on Urban Heritage Preservation
Anti-restoration Movement and the Beginning of Modern Conservation
The developments of the “Grand Tour” in Europe in the first half of the eighteenth century gave rise to proliferation of interest in collection and the study of works of arts. Visits to countries such as Greece and Italy brought with themselves an increasing awareness to the universal value of works of art and historic monuments. This awareness subsequently gave rise to the recognition of cultural diversity and the prominence of national identity, thus attentiveness and sense of responsibility to conserve historic artifacts and monumental architecture was shaped. The first approach to conservation was that of repair and restoration that was initiated by a group of wealthy intellectual elites. By the end of the 18th century, a new approach to conservation took place. This new approach, known as “stylish restoration” encouraged ideas of mimesis. The idea was that the restoration should be done in such ways that bring back the building structure to its original state as it has been at the time of its completion. The aim was to reach the ultimate perfection, in form of completeness and unity in the structure “as an illustration of an ideal” (Nasser, 2003, p. 468). This approach was founded upon the nationalistic ideologies. As Nasser points out, the “respect of the original style [was] not for the aesthetic values, but as the representation of achievements in the nation's history” (Nasser, 2003, p.468). It is by the same rational that nowadays, national heritage sites are typically chosen from the glories times of the nation as a symbol of remembrance of the nations triumph.
Following the age of Romanticism, the traditional conservation by reconstruction practices faced criticism. Antagonistic ideas developed and issues regarding authenticity and pastiche rose. The second half of the nineteenth century marked the initiation of the anti-restoration movement and subsequently beginning of the modern conservation. Two schools of thoughts developed. First group were the believers in restoration 'a la mode', associated with the architect, archaeologist and art historian, Eugène Viollet-le-Duc2 (1814-1879). The other, were the followers of John Ruskin, and
William Morris, the pioneers of the anti-restoration movement (Nasser, 2003; Ashworth & Howard, 1999).
Viollet-le -Duc's ideas expanded on the existing views in the world of art at the time, that suggested buildings should only consist of one style, which is the original style in which the building was completed. Therefore, the goal of restoration was to bring the building to its original state, by repairing and at times reconstructing the lost parts. In his Restoration article, published in the 'Dictionarie raisonne de L'architecture francaise medieval (Paris 1854), Viollet-le -Duc states “ 'Restoration', both the word and the restored object, are modern. To restore an edifice means neither to maintain it, nor to repair it, nor to rebuild it; it means to re-establish it in a finished state, which may in fact never have actually existed at any given time” ( Ashworth & Howard, 1999, p. 38). The school of though associated with Viollet-le-Duc, believed in preservation by means of reconstruction in order to reach the completeness, even at the price of mutilation of parts (Nasser, 2003).
The other school of thought, the anti-restoration movement, followed the ideas of “careful restoration.” John Ruskin (1819-1900), the forerunner of the anti-restoration movement, believed that “buildings are like living beings; they are born to grow and die, and they should be allowed to complete their natural cycle” ( Ashworth & Howard, 1999, p. 38). With this romantic concept of the ruin in mind, in his view restoration presented a great danger to the authenticity of the building, as it would interrupt the building's natural cycle. The authenticity of the building was dependent on its age. As a result, he was against excessive interference to the process of the aging of the building. On the other hand, Ruskin emphasized the importance of maintenance and non-interventionist conservation. He argued that “authenticity meant the retained building should be restored to its original state and used where possible and that its age gave its historic value and interest.” (Nasser, 2003, p. 469). Similarly, William Morris (1834-1896), the founder of Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, reflected the modern approach to conservation, raising the questions of authenticity and originality. He believed that the state of the building at any given time, was representative of each period and an indicator of the
2. Famous for his restoration work of Notre Dame de Paris in 1857, reconstruction of the medieval town of Carcassonne in 1844 ( Ashworth & Howard, 1999).
conditions and the requirements of that period (Nasser, 2003). Morris denounced the excessive interference with the structure and striping out the buildings, as he believed authenticity was in the originality and the evolutionarily aging of the building. He believed that restoration would damage the authenticity of the building. In his view, intervention was only acceptable to make the structure safe, but any material used should be distinguishable. He spread out the idea that heritage belongs to the society as a whole, and that it is a collective possession that needs to be passed on to the future ( Ashworth & Howard, 1999).
The restoration 'a la mode' usually entailed heavy alternation to the built structures. In spite of this, the preservation of the patina of the building, and the ideas of facadism (Nasser, 2003) had made these forms of restoration more acceptable. In fact, many of the prominent monuments still standing today are the outcome of restoration practices of the 19th century; monuments that would have been lost have they not been restored. Alternatively, anti-restoration ideologies offered increasing awareness concerning care and regular maintenance of the historic buildings. These conflicting values on what is regarded as authentic still exist and provoke disagreements on reconstruction of the medieval projects.
Periods Views on Conservation
1700-1750
1750-1800
1800-1850
1850- 1900's
- Collection of arts
- Recognition of cultural identity
- development of the ideas of ‘stylish restoration’ - repair and restoration to the original state
- criticism of exact reconstruction
- issues regarding authenticity and pastiche
- beginning of modern conservation - two schools of thoughts developed
1. Restoration ‘a la mode’ affiliated with Viollet-le-Duc
2. non-intervention restoration affiliated with John Ruskin & William Morris Table 1. Developments of views on Conservation (own work)
Preservation of the Cityscape in Historic Cities
The issue of preservation may be simpler to address when dealing with individual buildings that are listed as heritage, as they oftentimes follow predetermined guidelines within preservation policies. However, complexities arise when the issue is over preservation of the historic cityscape or preservation of vernacular structures that are not listed as heritage yet hold a significant social- cultural value to the community members as part of the attributes of the cityscape3 (Nasser, 2003). As
mentioned in the previous section, when monumental structures attain their heritage status by appropriateness, due to their socio-cultural value for the community (i.e. as a collective memory or as a reference point in a physical space), then absence or destruction of those heritage structures will impact the living quality of the locals.
This issue became particularly problematic with the age of globalization; the shift from industrial to post-industrial practices have impacted the built environment and local cultures of historic cities. In order to meet consumer's demand, the commodification of heritage has generated an imbalance between preservation of built cultural heritage for their intrinsic value and their monetary value as an economic asset providing a number of economic activities. With greater competition on unique tourist experience, traditional historic places are experiencing redefinition and reinterpretation of their cultural heritage. This situation creates a challenge for planning and management of the historic cities. The challenge lies beneath the dichotomy that exists between the need to protect the past for its intrinsic cultural value, and the need for new development to meet modern needs in such ways that cultural values of existing town-spaces are protected and not compromised (Nasser, 2003).
Conservation ideologies of the 1960's were developed to address these sets of issues and complexities. Rather than focusing on the preservation of individual monuments, protection of buildings as an ensemble became the main goal. Preservation practices started to pay more attention to retain the authenticity of historic areas in a broader context of the loci and the feel of historic urban cities. The significance of monumental buildings and their relationship to the rest of the town-space and maintaining the unity of the space as a whole became the focus of attention in the field of urban conservation. In historic cities, it is the physical setting and the ensemble of buildings that form the unique character of the cityscape and determine the overall sense of place. “' Place' is more than a location”, Hague argues. He refers to place as 'those fragments of human environment' where meanings and activities are generated to create memories and interpretations. In that sense, it could be said that place is an experience, more than a physical location (Hague & Jenkins, 2005).
Literature on town planning for historic cities (Ford,1978 & Lynch,1960) point out that a sense of familiarity with places, as well as a sense of orientation, are important elements in 'maintaining the individual's psychological stability'. Cities should provide visible clues of where we are going, It should provide us with a sense of familiarity and a sense of orientation. Vernacular buildings and free standing structures at times function as an axis, creating a focal point and sense of direction for the residents and locals. For this reason, mutilation of these structures and abrupt changes in the physical environment can damage public memory, cause disorientation and hinder this mental stability for the residents (Ford, 1978 & Lynch, 1960 in Ashworth 1999). It can be argued that it is not necessarily the physical built structure of heritage buildings and heritage sites that have an impact on the well being of individuals, but rather it is the activities that take place in these places and the memories created that matter the most to the local inhabitants (Tweet & Southerland, 2007, Hebbert, 2005). In this research, this claim is taken as a priori and discussion over the extent of its validity fall outside of the scope of this research. The main point of this argument is that too much change in the built environment has a negative impact on the well being of the residents. This effect can be attributed to the impact of heritage on the socio-psychological well being of individuals.
On the same topic, preservation of the historic city scape, Wang (2011), takes the case study of the ancient city of Pingyao to investigate the impact of heritage tourism, on the authenticity of the historic city. First she distinguishes two forms of authenticity. One form is the authenticity of original material that deals with conservation and reconstruction of individual buildings. Second form of authenticity has to do with keeping the integrity and maintaining the local way of life. She argues that the authenticity of a living historic city is rooted in the continuity of social activities of the locals. Cresswell (2004) also notes the importance of collective memory and the attachment of local residents with traditional public structures as a key element for keeping the integrity of the historic city. Karimi (2002) also underlines the importance of the anchor elements as a key factor for maintaining the spatial spirit of the historic town-scape and preserving the urban fabric. Wang's study (2011), reaffirms the importance of vernacular buildings and the traditional anchor elements for the social wellbeing of the locals, but it also shows that when this preservation, is done to attract tourism, then “the result is frozen history, which is opposed to the original intention of urban conservation. The overemphasis of authenticity in tourist settings interrupts the continuity of collective memory.” ( Wang , 2011, p. 20).
Wang (2011) states, “when the economic values of cultural heritage overweights the value of deeply rooted local culture, it is easy to turn historic living places into commercial products that encourages truism consumption.” (Wang, 2011, p.23 ). When city centers become an agglomeration of tourist, then local residents avoid going to these places as they traditionally would, and this situation changes
For Wang, sustainable planning for historic cities, should involve discussing the issue of authenticity from the local residents' point of view. Wang (2011) points out to the complications generated by the conventional authenticity. She states that the “discourse of authenticity in a physical setting has the tendency to fossilize the tangible culture” (Wang, 2011, p.19). Pointing to the elitist-led practices of preservation, she argues vernacular culture is often overlooked due to over emphasis on high culture. These practices, tend to ignore the transformation across time, and the fact that the city ages and its residents acquire modern needs. Wang (2011) concludes that “The over emphasis of the authenticity in tourist setting interrupts the continuity of collective memory of local residents and damages the authenticity in sense of a place” (Wang, 2011, p. 28).
2.1.3. Multiple Functions of Heritage
The initial assumption that this research is founded upon views heritage as a product with a markable value. Relict of the past go through a process of interpretation, gain particular meaning and take on different values. Gregory Ashworth describes the commodification process of heritage. In his article,
From History to Heritage-From Heritage to Identity (1994), Ashworth suggests that heritage as a
commodity has evolved from concerns over preserving relict of the past and has developed into a full fledged industry (Ashworth, 1994). He states, “ heritage is an industry in the sense of a modern activity” (Ashworth,1994, p.16). Selection processes, planning strategies for usage and preservation for heritage, have been “deliberately controlled and organized with the aim of producing a marketable product.” ( Ashworth, 1994, p.16). Thus, the value exchange and consequently the decision on what to preserve as heritage is influenced by the predisposition of the producers (i.e. agencies that are concerned with identification and preservation of heritage sites) as well as the consumers (i.e. visitors to historic sites) of this product.
Heritage, as a product, is assembled by careful selection and packaging4 of the raw materials such as
historical sites, monumental structures and relict artifacts. As such, heritage can be purposefully shaped to meet market demands, targeting a diverse range of consumers. Different products can be produced for each market from the same set of raw materials by the means of multiple variations in the interpretation process of selection and packaging. Therefore, it is the interpretations, or the framing process, that are the final products, not the physical property of the historic artifacts. In light of this, the significant value is defined by the producer, and not by the factual historic legacy (Ashworth, 4. In marketing terminology: identification and targeting (Source: Ashworth, 1994)
1999, p.17). See figure 2.
Figure 2. Commodification of the past ( Source: Ashworth, 1991)
Heritage industry like any other industries have producers and users. Producers are these individuals and organizations who contribute to the creation of this product, those who assign meanings to what has survived from the past, and perpetuate the creation of heritage. The users are visitors of the heritage site, people from the community that start believing in the idea of heritage. Also, local authorities and members of the government at times use the concept of heritage to gain more support for voting. From this argument it can be inferred that heritage serves multiple and at times overlapping functions. The market demand influences the selection and decision making on which heritage product to produce. Therefore, there are conflicting views on criteria selection for heritage among different stakeholders. As it was discussed in the previous chapter, the problem raises when too much effort on fulfilling the commercial objectives hinders socio-cultural values of heritage. The imbalance between fulfilling the commercial objectives, and marketing the heritage as a product according to demands of consumer, manly tourist, hinders the quality of living for the residents. As it was shown in the previous section too much effort in creating an authentic atmosphere for tourist experience cause damage to the authenticity in the way of life of original inhabitants.
Larkham (1996) suggests that the selection process creates tension. “They are clear conflicts of ideology in the design and selection of built environment. Some of these conflicts may be due to changing professional approaches and philosophies over time, such as a move from urban renewal to rehabilitation and conservation, or changes in architectural fashion.” (Nasser, 2003, p.23). The
What is interesting here is that different products can be made through a same set of resources. The different framing process in heritage stems from the issue that heritage simultaneously holds multiple uses and serves different users. Ashworth (1994), has divided them in to three categories. 1) Heritage as a cultural resource, 2) heritage used as a political resource, 3) heritage used aseconomic asset.
Heritage as a Political Resource
While studying heritage management and planning, it is important to take note of the tourism industry and actors involved in this field. The literature on tourism management utilizes the Contact Hypothesis theory ( Reisinger & Turner, 2003) to argue for the positive impacts of heritage tourism. Reisinger & Turner (2003) suggest that tourism is a vehicle for social exchange, providing opportunities for a 'peoples diplomacy' ( Poria & Ashworth, 2009). Contact theory suggests that, under appropriate conditions, interpersonal contact can be an effective way of reducing intergroup prejudice. The literature suggest that the social exchange that drives from heritage tourism enhances knowledge and understanding between groups that historically had a conflict between each other (Reisinger & Turner 2003 cited in Poria & Ashworth, 2009).
Poria & Ashworth (2009), however, hold an opposing opinion on this topic. They view heritage tourism as a socially constructed political discourse with the aim of legitimizing a certain social-political order. They view heritage tourism as a mean for maintaining the status quo. They suggest that “heritage tourism is a social process whose final outcome is the presentation and interpretation” (Poria & Ashworth, 2009, p. 523) rather than the objective protection of the past. They refer to the concept of 'heritagization', and explain that through this process certain aspects of the past have been purposely chosen to be preserved as to be presented with an aim of promoting or justifying certain social orders. Thus, the selection of what to preserve inevitably contains a political component. Therefore the selection and identification of heritage inevitably entail political messages. Here heritage plays a role as a political instrument perpetuating particular ideology, by political leaders or individuals associated with particular political agenda.
Poria and Ashworth (2009), emphasize the distinction between the objective act of conservation of the physical heritage site and the subjective ideological framework of heritage tourism. Heritagization focuses on the ideological framework, whereas conservation focuses on the preservation and at times reconstruction of the physical site. They suggest that “while preservation and conservation is about protecting the ‘real objective past’, heritagization is at times intentionally based on an invented, hidden, as well as a purposely chosen past.” (Poria & Ashworth, 2009, p.523). Heritagization justifies a certain social-political framework and creates the idea of ‘us’ vs ‘them’ (Poria & Ashworth, 2009). By
emphasizing the differences between groups, heritagization aims to establish solidarity among members of one homogeneous group. Furthermore, heritage shapes “socio-cultural place identities in support of particular state structures.” (Ashworth,1994, p.13). Heritage can also be seen as a resource to achieve certain socio-political goals, legitimization of status quo, and a tool for reinforcing particular ideology. Frey & Steiner (2011) also, have noted the indispensable use of heritage for political leaders to gain prominence ( Frey & Steiner, 2011). The task is to examine how this function of heritage is performed, and what difficulties and conflicts it may potentially create. Investigating the framing process of heritage provides a good analytical tool for answering these questions.
2.2. Addressing the Past through Symbolic Markers
Previous section demonstrated that what is considered as heritage is often determined by the dominant socio political ideologies of the time. This section will further develop on that assertion and will argue that not only the definition of heritage, but also justifications for its planning, preservation, and re-use are also constructed according to the social settings, cultural conditions and dominant rules of the society.
By providing a brief discussion regarding the concept of 'framing' as a planning strategy, this section will demonstrate how legitimization of planning projects in the publics eye is done through the use of symbolic markers and exciting cultural manifestations.
To conclude, it will be argued that justifications for the rebuilt of Haringpakkerstoren was built upon the doctrine of 'preservation of the image of the inner-city'. 'Culture- led urban renewal' schemes, as opposed to 'market-led urban development' policies, have been used as symbolic markers and planning strategies to validate the need for the reconstruction of the project.
Framing Process in Strategic Planning
In spatial planning developments, a great deal of consideration is given to the general economic situation as well as cultural norms of the region. Change in social trends, institutes a shift in the direction of spatial planning policies. A look at the history of the national spatial planning policies in the Netherlands demonstrates this pattern (Salet & Faludi , 2000). Throughout the years, a shift in policies has occurred as a response to the public discourse and the social realities of the time. Numerous shifts in direction and reorientation of national spatial planning polices in the Netherlands highlight that, change in policies ensues the direction of socio-cultural conditions and concerns, or what appears to be of concern in the society. The current conditions were shaped by these continual strategic revisions of the institutional policies and have formed the direction of spatial planning and developments in the Netherlands ( Salet & Faludi , 2000).
Similar situation is noticeable in the local planning policies as well. Shifts in demands between commercial, residential and public spaces force planners to frequently rearrange land use policies 'in order to maintain the harmony and balance of sought after spatial relations' (Salet & Faludi , 2000, p. 2). These frequent changes to spatial planning policies are in contrast to environmental and/or infrastructure policies were most requirements and quality standards are fixed. Salet & Faludi (2000) state: “spatial planning contains virtually no intrinsic measures of 'quality' which remain static under all circumstances” (Salet & Faludi ,2000, p. 2). It can be inferred from this statement that what considered to be as 'quality' or desirable land use policy varies according to the socio-political and economic situation of the time. Policy change is not the objective; there are no intrinsic quality standards for spatial planning policies. Salet & Faludi (2000) argue that spatial perspectives continuously evolve and get restructured in order to meet the demands of the contemporary needs. From time to time, new social factors come to the forefront of spatial planning policy and decision-making. This readjustment of policies is also visible in the history of preservation and heritage planning in Amsterdam.
Over the years, Amsterdam has witnessed a considerable shift in perspective and common views regarding the preservation of the historic city-center. Ever since the urban renewal policies of 1960's and early 1970's, notorious for the large number of demolitions that occurred at the time, concerns regarding preservation of cultural heritage and preserving the image of the historic city center have grown (Meurs, 2004). The present dominant discourse is the discourse of preservation and re-use of heritage sites. From this mindset transition, it can be eluted that what considers to be of an importance and priority concern in the field of heritage preservation and planning is socially constructed. The ideas of preservation manifest themselves in the history of previous practices. What is known to be of value to the city's identity or the cultural sense of a place, undergoes changes throughout the years (Dembski, 2012). This idea again, reiterates that justifications for changes in policies and planning
the public (Dembski, 2012). Planning projects “need to make sense to those who are involved, therefore institutions are internalized in human mindset rather than as a set of external rules” (Dembski, 2012, p. 4). For this reason, informing the public about the new projects and presenting justifications for their implementations are indispensable components of the policy revision process. Dembski suggests that institutional meaning needs to be reaffirmed in every new practical situation to be validated.
Shaping publicsconsciousness in the course of policy change, can be well explained through framing process theories and frame analysis ( Benford & Snow, 2000; Rein & Laws 2000). Frames, as explained by Benford and Snow (2000), are vehicles for constructing new ideas and mobilizing collective actions. Through interpretations and exchange of knowledge, frames guide social movements. 'Prognostic framing', entails identification of a problem in order to justify new proposed solutions and strategies to carry out a plan (Benford & Snow, 2000). Frames are stories told to the public in order to justify the revisions in the policy. In a sense, frames provide a structure and context in which the formation of certain decisions become more acceptable. Frames guide actions and facilitate the shift in policy towards the new direction. In other words, frames set the scene, explain the diagnosed problem to the public in an attempt to justify the actions taken in response to the 'constructed problem' at hand.
Framing also aids in coalition building and mobilizing actors. In spatial planning, unlike environmental and infrastructure policies, shifts in coalitions are critical and at times even desirable (Salet & Faludi , 2000, p. 2). The main requirement for the execution of the collective spatial goals lie beneath the collaboration and strategic coalition among private and public actors. Planning agencies need to continuously seek out new alliances with the outside powers. Therefore, policymakers and planners are actively involved in shaping the new ideas and mobilizing social change. In the realm of this coalition building, concerns over legitimacy and effectiveness in spatial planning rises in such ways that the collective spatial goals are met.
Investigation in the framing process, (ie. frame analysis) of proposed plans, provides a useful tool for addressing concerns over the legitimacy and effectiveness of spatial planning policies. The conceptual approach of frame analysis, acknowledges the power relation that is inherent in the construction of the collective social imagery or what is sometimes referred to as 'collective consciousness' (Salet & Faludi ,2000). Frame analysis, reveals the power dynamic that exists among various ideologies. Literature regarding framing closely follows the field of discourses. Discourse, as described by Sharp & Richardson (2001), is a “complex entity that expands into the realms of ideology, strategy, language
and practice, and is shaped by the relations between power and knowledge” ( Sharp & Richardson, 2001, p.195). Referring to beliefs as 'frames', Schon & Rein, (1994) suggest that policy positions rest “on underlying structures of belief, perception, and appreciation” (Schon &Rein, 1994, p.23). Therefore, policy controversies are derived from the dispute amongst various parties holding conflicting 'frames' or social realities (Schon & Rein, 1994). This situation suggests that the implementation of spatial goals is closely tied with the interests and power position of other actors involved.
Similar situation exemplifies itself in the field of heritage planing. The commodified product of heritage, as was discussed earlier, serves multiple functions. In addition to tourism industry, heritage conservation provides a number of other economic activities and commercial interests at the local level. The unique characteristics of the historic city are deliberately used to promote a place with a particular image ideal for investment, enterprise, real estate or recreation destination. An examination of place-promotion advertisements or real estate brochures which accentuates the image of the 17th century canal district confirms this assertion.
On the other hand, cultural heritage sites and monumental buildings play a key role in creating a sense of place and collective identity for the residents of the historic cities. The problem arises when commercial exploitation of heritage overshadows the socio-cultural function of heritage sites for the residents of historic cities. The aim of this study is to investigate this relationship between economic forces and the proceeding strategic behaviors in spacial planning. More explicitly, this study will look at the extent to which economic forces were the motivating elements for the promotion of the Haringpakkerstoren reconstruction project. To this aim, an investigation utilizing the framing process of the construction plan has been carried out.
Chapter 3: Research Design and Methods
This chapter is divided into two sections. The first section, will address the research design and the justifications for using frame analysis as a method of inquiry to study how symbolic markers are used by planners, stakeholders, and local authorities as an instrument for ensuing spatial planning projects.
The second section will address the methodological steps, the elements of the content analysis, the process of data collection, and limitations of the study.
3.1. Research Question and Hypothesis
In this research, the impact of economic forces associated with preservation of historic sites on the future of Amsterdam's inner-city will be assessed. To this end, the case of Haringpakkerstoren and its reconstruction plan have been selected as an example to further investigate motivations behind the initiative and the following decisions that have led to it's dissolution. The aim of this study is to identify the extent in which these motivations were propelled by the commercial objectives. Accordingly the following research question is formulated.
Research Question: How do economic priorities shape the socio-cultural function of heritage in the
Amsterdam's city planning process ?
Subsequent questions were designed to provide a better understanding of the underlying motivations behind the project, as well as to provide clues on how each group and stakeholder presented the project in different ways. As the objectives of each stakeholder and coalition groups were diverse, each group presented a different reality about objectives and goals of the project.
Sub questions:
1) What were the goals for the construction plans of the new Haringpakkerstoren?
2) What it meant for the community, the city image, the place making and collective memory? 3) Who were the stakeholders involved and how much power did they have over the process of decision-making?
4) What were the motivations behind the decision of not reconstructing the tower?
Hypothesis: If the objective of dominant powers is to exploit the economic function of heritage, then
the frames are constructed in such ways that situates the economic necessities and the added value of heritage on the center of the agenda; consequently the socio-cultural value of heritage may be hindered. This is because policies are shaped to fulfill the objectives and interests of those in power.
The design of this qualitative inquiry took the form of an embedded single case study. The rationale for choosing an embedded single case study versus a holistic design in this research was that the data analysis regarding the case of Haringpakkerstoren was understood in the context of a broader occurrence, ie. that is the inclusion of the 17th century Canal Ring Area inside the Singelgracht to the UNESCO's World Heritage list in 2010. The essence of this qualitative inquiry took the form of explanatory research. An explanatory research design, as indicated by Yin (2003), deals with a contemporary event that has operational links to the past. In order to make sense of the event in its current state, the operational links need to be traced back in time (Yin, 2003). For this reason an understanding of the history of Haringpakkerstoren and multiple functions that it had served since the beginning of its construction in the 15th century, till its demolition in 1829, is crucial for this study. In order to better understand the rational behind the desire to rebuilt the Haringpakkerstoren, comprehension of the function that it had served for the city as an anchor element and as a symbolic marker for national identity is essential.
This research is looking at a single unit of analysis which is identified as the framing of the construction plan for the new Haringpakkerstoren. The aim is to interpret the results from the frame analysis of this case study in order to better understand the impact of economic forces on identification and preservation of cultural heritage sites. The embedded single-case study design allows for an investigation with attention to subunits of analysis. In this study, subunits of analysis were identified as 'framing of the UNESCO designation'.
The case of Haringpakkerstoren was chosen for its relatively controversial decision-making process. Construction plans for the new Haringpakkerstoren, one of the two clock towers of Hendrick de Keyser demolished in 18295, brought about controversy among different sectors involved in the process of
heritage planning. Various institutions and actors were holding opposing opinions about the proposed initiative. Public and private actors, national and local officials, all had disputes over various elements of the initiative, raising their own point of views. This conflict of opinion raises questions about the legitimacy and effectiveness over the selection of cultural heritage sites. Therefore, this study makes for an interesting case to examine the framing process in implementing future plans.
3. 3. Frame Analysis
Frame analysis has been particularly employed to investigate the strategic devices that were used to guide and legitimize the corresponding actions. In order to understand the framing process of the spatial planning projects by various stakeholders and coalition groups, content analysis of the published material by associated institutions, and the transcribed interviews has been employed. Steps followed for this qualitative inquiry were very much in line with qualitative research procedure suggested by Adcock & Collier (2001). For content analysis, techniques suggested by Insch, et. al. , (1997), were also incorporated with some modifications and adjustments. Bellow, an outline of the procedure of content analysis is presented.
First, an in depth literature review within multiple disciplines such as planning, heritage management and tourism was carried out. This preliminary procedure provided a broad road-map of relevant background concepts and themes. These concepts formed the basis of the analysis and were later on used as the reference points in the interpretation of the findings. The second stage of the research consists of conceptual ordering. In this stage, main concepts were systematically grouped together in terms of their properties and dimensions which provided a template for comparing and contrasting the incoming data. These systematized concepts provided a tool for interpretation and analysis of the data. The third stage was the data analysis. This process was done by content analysis and coding of transcribed interviews and published materials representing the view points of the stakeholders and associate organizations. Constant comparison of incoming data with the main concepts was an ongoing procedure, as new insights would rise trough out the research. Figure 4. presents an overview of the procedure that was carried out for the frame analysis.
Data Collection
Data for content analysis were obtained from multiple sources. All sources of information provided a qualitative form of data. Transcribed audio recordings from five semi-structured interviews provided the first category of data (see Appendix 1 for the list of interviewees). Documentary information, i.e. reports, year book publications, newsletters and proposals by the affiliate organizations, consisted the second category of data. The documentations were mostly in Dutch, and were translated to English by the preliminary knowledge of the researcher. Professed believes of public figures in published journals by 'Amsterdamse Binnestad', two articles by 'Stadsherstel', three articles from the year book publication of 'Amstelodamum', one policy recommendation published in 'Thema Tijdschriften', a reportage of the construction plan carried out by City of Amsterdam Spatial Planning Department (DRO) and commissioned by 'Stadsherstel' were analysed. Two related articles in the daily news paper 'Het Parool', and one article in 'De Telegraaf' have been analysed as a reflector of the public
Appendix I. for the list of all the sample material .
Figure 4. Procedure used for content analysis (own work, inspired from Adcock & Collier 2001; Insch, et. al. , 1997)
Units of Analysis
The primary unit of analysis was identified based upon existing view points of the affiliated organizations and various stakeholders related to the project. Subunits of analysis were the existing views on the world heritage designation for the canal district among the various stakeholders. This unit was also the basis for frame analysis and the way in which the reconstruction of the Haringpakkerstoren initiation was framed by various stakeholders. The dependent variable in this study was the decision on the construction, and later on, the termination of the project. Independent variables were identified as commercial objectives and economic forces. Another independent variable under the study was the framing of the UNESCO designation as one of the possible contributing factors that may have impacted the decisions.
Data Analysis and Coding
