Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
In Western Australia, TDRs are an option.
And both State and Federal Governments offer incentive programs, usually aligning to areas of election commitment. These are highly competitive and always oversubscribed.
As Fremantle Prison is owned and managed by the state, state funding is allocated to address the difference between income (tours, retail, events and tenancies) and cost, as well as major conservation works.
Prior to (approx) 2014, if you were to knock down a place of State significance in Western Australia you would be charged only $10,000 AU ($7,700 US). Property developers would just factor this into their development costs.
This was amended to a $1,000,000 fine ($770,000 US) and a 10 year ban on the development of the site.
Government in Australia operates at local, state and federal levels. Australia is democratic and voting is compulsory. Political parties also operating at state and federal levels. Differences in election results in state and federal elections can influence funding allocation.
Australia is still adjusting to the consequences of the British occupation of what they claimed was vacant land, but was actually managed by Aboriginal people for tens of thousands of years. Aboriginal people were only required to vote in 1984. Today managers of cultural sites (particularly cultural landscapes as Aboriginal Australians did not build ‘monuments’), are recognising the need for shared management. Extreme bushfires in early 2020 highlighted this, as Aboriginal prior land management involving fire stick burning maintained fire load at a minimal level. New laws prohibiting fires allowed this to build up, causing extremely intense fires.
Fremantle Prison is owned by the state of Western Australia, vested in the Minister for Heritage and operated on his behalf by the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage. As a place of identified local, state and national significance, Fremantle Prison is subject to local planning laws, Western Australian Heritage Act 2018 (State) and Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Act (Federal).
Fremantle Prison is establishing a heritage management framework, with each document referring to relevant legislation and/or guidelines. This includes a Heritage Management Policy that is updated every 5 years, a 10 year Master Plan to define future use, Collection Management Policy, Archaeological Management Plan and Landscape Management Plan. Other document being prepared are Conservation Management Plans for each zone/area, Interpretation Management Plan, Accessibility Plan and Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan.
The Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage has recently launched new local planning guidelines to protect design schemes of precinct – Fremantle Prison is hoping to be a test case for this new scheme.
Heritage values change. Fremantle Prison is only now in the process of engaging with Aboriginal people and developing an Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan. The place is significant in its role in the displacement of Aboriginal people through colonisation, and stretches from arrival of British convicts to Western Australia in 1850 to 1991, so displays the impact of this in living history. The story of how this impact is address is what we are currently writing, an will no doubt reveal future social-specific values. However this element has been largely absent in the historical narrative until now.
Fremantle Prison operates under both National and State Heritage legislation, as the sites has values identified at both levels (and as well as International). The Burra Charter is a key guide and has been used to inform our site specific Fremantle Prison Heritage Management Policy. This is updated every 5 years and provides future security in the local interpretation of both laws, principles and guidelines.
In early 2020, severe bushfires in eastern Australia impacted many world heritage sites. Traditional management practices, including fire stick burning, have not been practiced since colonisation (approx 230 years ago). This caused a build up of a great fire load and intense heat during the fire – so hot it cracked rocks which had displayed historic Aboriginal rock art.
There is now much action to reinstate traditional (intangible) values in cultural landscape management which have the benefit of better conserving tangible attributes.
Interesting point- yes was the original China Town ever considered an ‘intrusive element’ in the prior landscape?
My views on Hazrat Nizamuddin and Vancouver’s Chinatown
The conservation and activation of Hazrat Nizamuddin:
1. Conforms to the principles of heritage management (human rights, equality and long term perspective) and best practice site conservation, based on strong partnerships.
2. Demonstrates heritage is a crucial aspect of the development process.
3. Utilises all four categories of tools for sustainable development, with community engagement appearing to be a strong factor in the success of this revitalisation.
4. Is supported by and strengthens all three pillars of sustainability (social, environmental and economic).
5. Addresses sustainable development goals (SDGs) through specific project actions, in particular:
a. no poverty
b. quality education
c. gender equality
d. clean water and sanitisation
e. decent work and economic growth
f. reduced inequalities and
g. sustainable cities and communities and partnerships.
In contrast, Vancouver’s China Town appears to be lacking a long term perspective and is missing the opportunity to create value from its heritage.
Gentrification of this area may be addressing certain SDGs i.e. decent work and economic growth, but this appears to be at the expense of heritage, not because of it; prosperity in spite of people and their cultural heritage. There are many China Towns in the world that representative samples still exist, so those who do value this can still appreciate this elsewhere. The loss is at the local level.
We know culture is dynamic. This examples raises many questions:• Have social changes occurred so swiftly in Vancouver that little/no value is now placed on this aspect? Perhaps social cohesion has already been lost. One might ask, if no-one in Vancouver cares, and there are many around the word, is it important?
• Should (temporary) social disconnection be considered in the context of risk management and disaster recovery?
Paula Nelson, Fremantle Prison
