Page 57 - Beyond Decommissioning

38 Beyond Decommissioning

good and being commodified as such. This process can result in a loss of authenticity
and historical significance of the cultural resource as well as trivializing the intangible
aspects of a heritage property. Many industrial cities now experience the same kind of
reuse schemes converting former industrial buildings into places of living, leisure and
consumption. This usually results in changing the preexisting character of these cities
and transforming these old urban landscapes of production into new landscapes of
consumption” (see definition of “commodification” given in the Glossary).
A comprehensive debate about the redevelopment challenges is reported in The
Registry (2017). The main problem turns out to be the process that involves the local
municipality and its various agencies, which can be a hurdle to the developers and
their economic interests. One of the main obstacles is the actual physical challenges
that the renovation of historic buildings presents, especially considering the city’s
Landmark Preservation Board process. “The process is there for a very good reason
… to preserve our history, which is key. But the way that the [process] is set up pro-
hibits economic considerations and financial realities of buildings that need to be seis-
mically upgraded.” A consideration of the economic context is needed in combination
with the Preservation Board’s main goal of landmark preservation. If the redeveloped
building is expected to last another 100 years, seismic re-qualifications are needed.
Adaptive reuse can also be affected by greater market forces. In some cases, citywide
and government regulations play a major role in how a project is received and what
types of objections it may face. Political and legislative stability is another concern.
“A disrupted administration is very difficult, especially in a business and building
environment, with new directors, priorities and agendas ….” Adaptive reuse projects
also call for creativity and imagination. “In our experience that it’s been good to come
in without having a preconceived judgment; coming in with an idea and strategizing
with the city … adaptive reuse doesn’t fit into very clear categories, and that’s what
makes it so interesting and complicated.” The conclusion of the debate however was
largely positive: “there’s a way to both preserve our history and to upgrade and mod-
ernize our buildings with enough creative thought.”
In preservation and reuse of industrial heritage, another contentious issue is the
potential gentrification. The historic and visual features of old industrial buildings
and their proximity to the city attract people to live and/or work in these redeveloped
buildings. These new residents (often well-off professionals and young, rampant
entrepreneurs) pave the way for gentrification, because these luxury residences are
not affordable for low-income segments of the population. This situation applies to
residential reuse—a highly private use—rather than to public reuses such as museums,
art galleries, restaurants, or shopping malls. Residential use of this type may cause
unequal accessibility, spatial separation, and social exclusion: often these buildings
become secluded properties with strictly controlled access. On the other hand, it
should be recognized that often the redeveloped buildings are up market but their loca-
tions are not up market. Developers need to offer the buyers some security. Enabling
gated redevelopment involves a loss of public amenity. It is often argued that the pres-
ervation of the heritage asset should be viewed by the community as enough return for
this loss, because a restored historic building—whatever its reuse—is better for the com-
munity than an ill-maintained or derelict building. It can be counterargued, however,