Page 50 - Beyond Decommissioning

The fundamentals of industrial redevelopment 31

The process involved in identifying and picturing memories, monuments, history,
cultural heritage, and museums is very political. It is characterized by negotiations and
fights for interpretation. Those involved may be curators and environmentalists, engi-
neers and accountants, architects, and elected officials—all with different responsibil-
ities, vested interests, and perhaps dual agendas.
Cultural heritage can be double edged. Designating something as a cultural heri-
tage is to elevate it to a higher status, but also to exclude from today’s reality some-
thing disturbing: this is only viable insofar as the cultural heritage is presented as a past
event. But nuclear power is certainly not dead and buried. At the same time, an emerg-
ing interest in decommissioned nuclear plants can be seen, fully in line with the
touristic trend of visiting disused industrial sites (e.g., chemical and metallurgical).
Cultural heritage as a double-edged phenomenon leads to further considerations.
The risk associated with nuclear and radiological sites and the need to secure and
remediate the facilities cause negative feelings, but also prompt a sense of excitement
and give the sites an atmosphere of adventure (see discussion on “atmosphere” earlier
in this chapter), which along with the perception of patina and nostalgia sets the bases
for so-called “rust tourism.” Can a conversion to tourism destination be an expression
of reconciliation with the past?
How do memories come to be considered cultural heritage? As said earlier, this is a
critical political issue. Should the individual experience become a collective concern?
The answer to this question is related to a society’s self-image and vision. Quite
recently public opinion movements have emerged, aimed at involving the man-on-
the-street in this evaluation and consequently creating a more democratic cultural
heritage.
Nonetheless, cultural heritage remains characterized by a more elitist perspective,
typically restricted to professionals and enthusiasts.
What are the implications of a democratic cultural heritage? Concerns have been
raised that designated cultural heritage monuments are growing in numbers to such a
point that their meaning can become diluted and irrelevant. And then what will be the
role of the cultural heritage experts? Anyhow the crux for the individuals and society
remains the management of changing conditions when past experiences, present
situation, and future prospects collide and yet a reconciliation is needed. In sum,
the contentious point is that “Industrial built forms, like other historical buildings, lose
their function due to their obsolescence and thus, adaptive reuse can be a suitable con-
servation option. Yet, adaptive re-use for industrial heritage conservation has to be
concerned with creating and establishing cultural values of obsolete spaces and their
social recognition as heritage sites” (Sugden, 2017).
And finally, a couple of points—based on actual events—advocating redevelop-
ment of the old buildings, rather than demolition (Rocchi, 2015). First, when you
destroy an old building, you never know what you are destroying. The Daylight Build-
ing in Knoxville, TN, was a dilapidated structure. A developer bought it with a view at
demolishing and building new constructions in its place. However, following several
failed deals to demolish the building, the Daylight went back on sale. When the new
owners began renovations, they discovered the building’s treasuries: soffits made with
heart-pine wood, a large clearstory, a front awning adorned with rare tinted