The following sessions are currently accepting papers. In order to submit yours, click this link to access the submission form and choose the title of the session to which you want to submit in the appropriate menu.
Les sessions suivantes sont ouvertes aux propositions de communications. Pour soumettre la vôtre, cliquez ce lien pour accéder au formulaire et choisissez le titre de votre session de prédilection dans le menu indiqué.
Chaired by Humberto Morales Moreno, Contreras Delgado and Becerril Montero
Community lies at the heart of the processes of industrialization and de-industrialization. From labor to landscapes and from social fabric to ecological communities, scholars regularly examined the industrial community as core to industrial heritage. However, while social scientists have long studied industrial communities, only recently has there been a general consensus of respecting and working with communities themselves. Even so, working “with” a community on industrial heritage has too often led to tokenization, generalization, or even continued appropriation, rather than research processes that enhanced agency and created sustainable power relations, enhancing a community’s ability to tell its own diverse heritages. This session expands past acknowledging, studying, or consulting the community to better understand how we as scholars and industrial heritage itself can work for communities that share their lives with us.
Drawing from community-based methodology and scholarship across the social sciences, we explore examples of community agency, activism, and research design. From identifying research questions, to implementation, to dissemination and use, this session takes a broad view of community-based research in industrial heritage to better understand how systems of disenfranchisement within industrialization, de-industrialization. and post-industrial development impact communities and means of redress.
Chaired by Mark Rhodes and Timothy Scarlett
Chaired by Milan Balaban and Pavel Bednar
This session addresses a perpetuating disjunction between conceptualisation of heritage and heritage making in heritage studies vis-a-vis heritage management and conservation of industrial heritage sites. There is an inevitable impact of this disjunction on advancing policy in people- and place-centred approaches to heritage futures. This session aims to explore ways in which tangible and intangible traces of the past can be utilised creatively in shaping desirable places to dwell and work. How can we address re-placing the natural and social legacy in neglected urban settings of industrial heritage sites through assembling informal archives and experimenting with art, while engaging local communities in building more equitable futures?
Over the last decades, we witnessed an accelerated growth of participatory approaches, citizen activism, and arts-based methods that informed ways of problematizing heritage as emergent and dynamic phenomenon produced through multiple discourses, practices, performativity and rituals. Yet, these approaches advance conceptualisation of heritage that is more fluid and context-dependent than definitions produced by architectural and urban practices and the archaeological and scientific methods used in heritage management and conservation. We welcome contributions that critically reflect and creatively explore how new methods can be accommodated within and adopted alongside existing praxis of heritage management studies concerning industrial heritage sites:
- How to engage methodologically and conceptually with processes of change concerning neglected sites and industrial ruins through critical and creative practice?
- How different methods can help to improve sustainable access to and conservation of industrial heritage?
- How can we support the citizen’s sustainable engagement in management of heritage of vernacular and post-industrial sites through volunteerism, activism, and socially and/or environmentally engaged artivism?
- How the bottom-up processes, through on-site and online forms of collectivism and relationality might enhance an overall understanding of the challenges facing urban management, placemaking, urban planning, and conservation praxes, concerning industrial heritage, to reduce the effects of major cultural disconnections that threaten urban futures?
We invite interdisciplinary engagement including theoretical contributions drawing on ethnographic, architectural, creative visual works, critical heritage study reflections, and empirical cases, as well as less conventional presentations, including film, creative writing, poster, video essay, or performance.
Chaired by Katarzyna Kosmala and Tomasz Jelenski
During the Industrial Revolution coal was the most important energy source for both homes and industries. At the time, coal mining created strong regional industrial identities and mentalities, as well as industrial images and imaginaries in the eyes and minds of external observers. Such identities and ideas of coal would go on to shape industrial landscapes and communities.
The papers presented in this session will investigate the social and economic changes that were triggered by transformations within the energy market and de-industrialization processes from international and comparative perspectives. Against this background the session will discuss strategies and concepts of (re)-valuation in former mining areas. The industrial heritage will be reconsidered in a broader sense, i.e. in the context of the specific post-industrial landscape and new cultural tourism.
Chaired by Barry L. Stiefel, Torsten Meyer and Michael Farrenkopf
We propose a discussion of the industrial landscape concept, its geographical and heritage ramifications and its conceptual boundaries.
The discussion focuses on the specific case of a woollen mill in Lordelo (Porto, Northern Portugal) – Fabrica de Lanificios de Lordelo. Lordelo is an example of how a manufactory infrastructure dated from the Portuguese early industrialization can be characterized as the centre of a larger territory.
The starting point of the research is the definition and location of the mill itself. The remains of the original structures are not always easy to find. Although some historical records refer to two different woollen mills in this area that produced, at least, since 1781 and 1805, respectively, their exact locations were unknown prior to this research.
In a process that aggregates several scientific and social sensibilities, GIS technology was a determinant tool to identify the precise location of Lordelo’s mill – after 1821, the two mills mentioned merged in a single firm. The methodology consisted mainly of the georeference of historical maps. Specifically, military maps from the Peninsular Wars era (1808-1810), since the factories were occupied by both French and British-Portuguese armies. This process implied not only a comprehension of the digital GIS technologies, but also deep research on historical cartography and other non-pictorial geographic references and sources, such as literary descriptions of some events involving the mill’s structures and surroundings. This included mostly war memories and veteran journals from the Peninsular War and the Portuguese 1832-1834 Civil War. These materials and tool helped to locate the mill, which worked until 2005 and was demolished in 2016. In spite of the demolition, some remains from 1853 and 1918 were preserved.
The georeferenced historical maps and memories also allowed us to overview a larger context related to the structures and their memories: the inter-dynamic relation of the mill with the natural and human environment of Lordelo’s area.
This panoramic view of the territory and its elements enhances the disruptions and continuities of the community’s memory, namely its connection with their industrialization heritage. At the same time, it brings other topics into discussion, such as the post-industrial legacy and its relation with the city urban tissue, its preservation and articulation with the new values and transformations (obsolescence, gentrification), and some of its inherent social conflicts. The aggregation of all these aspects and structures, its study, its preservation and interpretation should play a key role in the management and assessment of this urban area (which is often seen as fractured and uprooted) in a social and cultural perspective.
Chaired by Mário Bruno Pastor
The Global and Local Section of TICCIH aims to continue its collaborative work by organising a separate session within the framework of the 18th congress in Montreal, Canada. Following its previous sessions centred on various subjects at the Freiberg, Tampere, Taipei and Lille TICCIH conferences, this time the Section will focus on the identity of industrial civilisation in the post-communist countries in Central and Eastern Europe from the angle of its industrial heritage, lost or preserved, in accordance with the driving thoughts of the congress organisers.
Although the term ‘industrial heritage’ was absolutely unknown in the communist era, the history as well as the material evidence of industrialisation and labour was highly appreciated in the countries of the Soviet bloc due to economic, political, and ideological reasons. As a result, numerous industrial and technical museums were established, industrial monuments protected, scientific articles and books published on industrial history in every country. The change of the political system, however, has substantially modified the public attitude to the tangible and intangible heritage of industrialisation in the 1990s, frequently endangering its survival. Despite definite improvements related to its conservation and reuse in the past years of the 21st century, industrial heritage is still not properly recognized in the post-communist countries. Strikingly, the material remains of communist-era industrialisation have been neglected most.
This session will primarily address identity as well as social issues, originating in the specific historical circumstances prevalent in the Central and East European countries in the communist period, in relation to industrial heritage preservation. What were the social effects of ‘forced’ industrialisation on local, national and regional level? How did it modify the identity of workers? What initiatives have been made to preserve the heritage of communist-era industrialisation? By what stakeholders? What were the reasons for its successs or failure? Whose bequest? Whose inheritance? How can preservation facilitate solving current identity and social problems in the region?
These are only few of the questions to be discussed by the participants of the session, mostly including the members of the Global and Local Section, while open for all those who are also interested in the subject.
Chaired by Györgyi Németh and Elena Alekseeva
Chaired by Steven High
L’activité industrielle est un puissant facteur de concentration de population. En témoignent les sites antiques ou médiévaux étudiés par les historiens, souvent proches des mines, des carrières ou des chantiers de construction. À partir du XVIIIe siècle, cependant, avec les premiers développements industriels, des liens forts se tissent entre les usines et diverses formes d’urbanisation. De la variété de rapports que construit l’industrie avec la ville ou, plus largement, avec les lieux d’habitation, on retiendra trois modèles principaux avec des implications différentes en matière de requalification urbaine fonctionnelle et symbolique, incluant la problématique patrimoniale et ses divers enjeux, notamment environnementaux.
1 – L’industrie a pu s’installer auprès de villes déjà existantes, profitant de la main d’œuvre, des qualifications et des infrastructures en place. Aux côtés de « beaux quartiers » induits par le développement économique, les usines et leurs annexes forment des faubourgs industriels, rattrapés par la croissance urbaine, relayés par les parcs d’activité périphériques, déterritorialisés et finalement inclus dans les problématiques du renouvellement urbain.
2 – L’industrie a aussi créé des villes de toutes pièces, les villes-usines ; parfois de façon très planifiée autour d’une seule grosse usine (les villes de compagnie caractéristiques du XXème siècle) ; parfois de façon beaucoup moins planifiée, rassemblant plusieurs systèmes industrialo-paternalistes et créant donc une ville au tissu particulièrement hétéroclite.
3- Le village industriel ou ouvrier peut apparaître comme une ville-usine en réduction. Il en a l’allure et la structure, mais pas la taille et la diversité des services. Il se caractérise par son ancienneté, la proximité d’une ressource énergétique ou minière et par un travail industriel effectué dans la totalité du processus, avec la mise en place d’une ingénierie sociale marquée.
Ces différentes unités aux agencements divers construisent des liens entre elles et avec les villes, notamment portuaires, formant des réseaux. Enfin, les héritages issus de ces configurations sont conséquents et posent, par leur densité, parfois leur isolement, de redoutables problèmes de mise en valeur, patrimoniale ou non.
Par rapport à cette typologie, plusieurs séries de questions se posent, chacune formant des pistes pour des interventions, dans une perspective généralement comparative :
* La première est à propos de la validité et la pertinence de ces modèles urbains eux-mêmes. Leur genèse, les conditions et contextes de leur implantation et de leur développement sont essentiels pour les comprendre, tout comme la prise en compte de leur porosité ou de leurs variations internationales. Il s’ensuit une incroyable variété de formes industrialo-urbaines, alors que le fonctionnement est, quant à lui, largement analogue. Comment bien cerner ces intrications et ces passages d’un modèle à l’autre ?
* La deuxième est dans l’urbanité même de ces modèles, très liée à leur fonctionnement hors du temps de travail. L’industrie crée, dès son implantation, un monde à part, aux comportements sociaux et aux modes de vie différents de ceux du monde rural, et cela quelques soient la taille et le nombre d’habitants de l’agglomération construite. Mais n’existe-t-il pas un gradient de l’urbanité, en lien avec des questions d’échelles et de temporalité ? Comment faire la différence entre le village ouvrier et la ville-usine ? À quel moment passe-t-on de l’un à l’autre ?
* La troisième piste touche à tous les éléments de reconnaissance, en matière de reconversion et de mise en valeur, de ces héritages. Entre négations et destructions, patrimoine-alibi, reconversions uniformes, etc., la mise en valeur patrimoniale ne dépend-elle pas de l’identité et du sentiment d’appartenance plus ou moins fort construits autour de ces formes industrialo-urbaines ? Dans quelle mesure la mise en valeur patrimoniale ne fait elle pas voler en éclat les caractères fondamentaux de l’héritage industriel ?
Chaired by Simon Edelblutte and Gracia Dorel-Ferré
It is widely accepted that understanding a historic place is a critical first step to guide subsequent management and conservation. Industrial sites present a number of challenges as understanding their form, function, design, boundaries, and conservation often requires a high degree of technical expertise and experience. In Canada, gaining this expertise and information sharing is hampered by a limited number of institutions offering training in industrial archaeology and the lack of a national professional and avocational organization. Additionally, legislation to protect and conserve heritage properties is inconsistent across the provinces and territories, and land-use planning will sometimes fail to appreciate the scale of industrial sites or their capacity for adaptive re-use. To address these challenges, this session will bring together industrial archaeologists and heritage planners from across eastern Canada to reflect on the importance of resource-specific technical knowledge, as well as best practice approaches for conserving and interpreting industrial heritage.
Chaired by Henry Cary
The legacy of open pit mining in general, and in the landscape of the Lusatian lignite district in Germany in particular, is a recultivated, restored, man-made, technogenic landscape. However, the future post-mining land uses in Lusatia must be understood as an opportunity that enables future-oriented land use not only from a technological-scientific and economic basis, but also from a social and especially cultural perspective. Therefore, the currently often negatively described Lusatian mining and post-mining landscapes are discussed as a source of new international appreciation and regional cultural identity. Lusatia can be seen as a landscape laboratory in which lignite open pit mines are innovatively recultivated, renaturalized, restored, reclaimed and redesigned continuously and for more than a century, according to the models of the respective times.
But this is not just an issue of Lusatia. Instead, strategies for adapting forestry, agriculture and horticulture as well as urban development of post-mining landscapes are increasingly needed around the world, against the background of climate change in particular.
The following key areas of interest in the hereby suggested session are a) innovative (agri/forst)cultural post-mining land-use, b) innovative planning strategies, c) innovations in resettlement strategies and d) innovative re-use of industrial building and technical fabric. On agricultural and forestry recultivated sites of the Lusatian mining landscape, low-nutrient and humus soils with low water retention capacity predominate. Many different strategies for removed and/or devastated settlements have been used during the last century. The planning culture has changed fundamentally over the decades, with results of ongoing research and within the different political systems in this area.
For the development of innovative land-use approaches, there is a large number of scientific-historical references in Lusatia and Brandenburg, already. Albrecht Thaer, for example, succeeded in practicing the importance of humus stock formation for agricultural production in the years 1809-1812, especially for the nutrient-poor and dry sites. He published it in “The Principles for Sustainable Land Management”. Rudolf Heusohn took up these principles and developed the scientific foundations of soil melioration for recultivation in Lusatian post-mining areas. The concept of near-natural, ecological forest management was also developed in Brandenburg at the beginning of the 20th century. By now it is assumed that the ensemble of Lusatian open pit mining landscapes and the mosaic of twelve decades of restoration efforts are unique in the world. The tradition of land-use research and innovation also shows how successful the region has been in the past with challenges of mining wastelands.
Of special interest is, to what extent traditional land use forms or historical land innovations in current research can be taken up and reflected on?
Linking unique innovative land-use tradition with innovative land-use research at the cutting edge of the times is the recent aim of research initiatives in Lusatia. The communication of the comparison of traditional and post-mining land use of Lusatia in particular aims to strengthen regional identity as well as the prospect of an economic development for local authorities and is relevant to the tourism sector of the region up to international recognition as a cultural landscape of international importance.
Chaired by Heidi Pinkerpan
This session is about the “hard facts” of conservation. It aims to draw together technical knowledge from related fields. Industrial conservation specialists rely on specialised knowledge and may sometimes not be aware that there is expertise and proven good or best practice in related fields. The transferring of knowledge from related engineering, construction preservation and architectural conservation specialists can serve the purpose of promoting and securing future preservation of industrial buildings, structures and historic engineering.
Since the 1990s knowledge hast been accumulated amongst practitioners in architecture and building engineering to preserve and deal with historic constructions. Only some of this knowledge and practice has penetrated into Industrial Heritage preservation, despite obviously similar conservation challenges facing steel concrete, thermal efficiency, fire prevention, security and accessibility.
The focus of conservation in both fields is generally adaptive re-use projects, which are than planned and managed under laws and standards designed for new buildings. So, engineers have developed strategies for preservation management to enable the convergence of conservation activity, bringing together safety regulations and norms appropriate for industrial heritage. For example, in Berlin, an old steel bridge was recently measured and analysed by engineer Thomas Klähne enabling the modelling of stresses throughout the structure. This model could classify the bridge under a contemporary norm (DIN-EN). These resulting predictive models made it possible to keep the bridge in use and permitted its renovation with only minimal changes. Such management methods and techniques may be transmitted from one field to another. This session will therefore bring knowledge from engineers who have not necessarily worked in industrial heritage preservation to industrial heritage engineering specialists participating in the TICCIH 2021 conference. The session also brings them together to promote bilateral cooperation.
This CFP is directed at building engineers, architects, construction engineers and related technicians who possess knowledge and have experience in fields that can directly help industrial heritage conservation.
Papers should cover one of the following topics:
1. Re-appraising historic structures for preservation using new standards
2. The internal insulation of buildings
3. The preservation of modern materials in building fronts
Chaired by Roman Hillmann and Norbert Tempel
Cette proposition de session focalise sur le patrimoine industriel colonial. A partir de trois cas, au Sénégal, au Tchad et à Taïwan, il s’agit de s’interroger sur les controverses et la possibilité d’utilisation du passé colonial. Le premier cas est le Sénégal, un pays d’Afrique de l’Ouest, dont l’industrialisation a été menée par la France afin de profiter des riches matières premières locales ; le deuxième est le Tchad, en Afrique centrale, et interroge le travail indigène qui a prédéfini l’organisation du travail dans les colonies françaises avec le portage civil qui fut la première forme d’emploi en Afrique subsaharienne ; le dernier cas est Formose, la première colonie du Japon entre 1895 et 1945, qui focalise sur l’héritage industriel autour du thé. Il témoigne de la grande transformation des activités dans les domaines de l’agriculture, de l’industrie et du commerce. Ces trois exemples en Afrique et en Asie sont face à un défi en commun : mettre en valeur le passé industriel colonial au présent.
Au XXIe siècle où la colonisation relève d’un passé lointain, pour quelles raisons recueillir ce patrimoine où passé industriel et passé colonial se croisent ? Les activités économiques sous la colonisation ne constituent pas une histoire neutre ; il existe des conflits mais aussi des formes de coopération entre le colonisateur et la société locale. Néanmoins, la situation devient plus complexe dans l’époque post-coloniale. L’utilisation des passés coloniaux a des sens variés selon les pays. Dans les anciens pays coloniaux comme la France, la colonisation a pu être vue comme une histoire à cacher ou à réinterpréter. La transformation du Musée colonial à Paris en Musée d’histoire de l’immigration est à ce titre exemplaire. Le changement de regard sur ces témoins de l’époque coloniale témoigne de la volonté d’intégration de ces questions dans la France contemporaine. D’un autre côté, dans les pays colonisés, le point de vue sur la colonisation peut recouvrir deux extrêmes. Par exemple, à Taïwan, la colonisation est neutre ou plutôt positive, vision très éloignée de celle de son voisin asiatique, la Corée du Sud, qui a aussi subi une histoire coloniale japonaise. De fait, la construction de passé colonial ne peut être pas unifiée car elle se transforme sur le temps long et se distingue selon les pays.
En conséquence, les différentes façons de traiter de la colonisation guident l’utilisation de l’héritage industriel colonial. La transformation en sites historiques de lieu comme l’usine, le chemin de fer, les ports, ou le quartier industriel sont possibles grâce aux études interdisciplinaires sur la mémoire industrielle. Mais quelles sont les valeurs véhiculées ? Y a-t-il d’autres points de re-interprétation à part célébrer l’apport du progrès par le colonisateur ? Ces questions, académiques et appliquées, doivent se situer dans le temps présent. Cela dit, l’enjeu est aussi d’intégrer le passé industriel colonial dans la vie des habitants locaux, dans un objectif mémoriel, touristique, politique et économique. Plusieurs choix sont possibles : transformer une usine en un musée industriel, ou encore en lieu de nouvelles pratiques culturelles, etc.
En bref, cette session souligne que le patrimoine industriel colonial se situe dans un contexte culturel et politique différent selon les territoires et les époques, et qu’il n’introduit pas naturellement le côté obscur de colonisation. Puisque la colonisation n’est jamais possible sans la participation des colonisés, qui avaient leurs propres volonté, technologies, savoirs, émotions, et dynamiques et qui ne vivaient pas passivement sous la colonisation. Le patrimoine industriel ne peut pas seulement célébrer le colonisateur, mais au contraire : il re-accueille les acteurs cachés au fil du temps. Le patrimoine industriel témoigne de l’interaction entre humains et non-humains, autochtones et étrangers. Il est le lieu où se croisent des savoir-faire, le travail, le rapport social, etc. Il cache un riche trésor à exploiter et à découvrir pour notre époque.
Chaired by Abdoulaye Gaye and Florence Hachez-Leroy
Les friches industrielles sont devenues des figures urbaines ordinaires et témoignent, dans les anciennes puissances industrielles mais aussi dans les pays du Sud, des transformations du tissu urbain ainsi que du fait qu’il y ait processus de qualification, déqualification et, parfois, requalification de ces lieux. Les transformations qui les caractérisent structurent aujourd’hui d’indéniables enjeux politiques, sociologiques, spatiaux et culturels.
Dans le cadre de ce congrès dont la thématique générale est « Le patrimoine industriel rechargé : nouveaux territoires, cultures changeantes », cette session se propose d’explorer un pan assez souvent négligé par cette production scientifique, celui liant le patrimoine industriel et la construction culturelle des corps. Dit autrement, il s’agit ici d’interroger le patrimoine industriel comme espace et lieu de construction sociale des corps. Deux perspectives majeures sont ainsi mises en exergue et sollicitent, chacune ou ensemble, des contributions à cette session régulière. Dans un premier temps, le patrimoine industriel apparait comme l’espace où, directement via la mobilité par des usages physiques (i.e. par le biais des activités ludiques, récréatives et sportives), se construisent des corps et des représentations sociales de ces corps, souvent perçu sous l’ordre de l’utilité ou de l’efficacité (i.e. dans le parkour) ou encore sous l’ordre de la mise en scène, le patrimoine
industriel devenant le décor pour exprimer un corps puissant et/ou performant (i.e. dans le street work out ou dans l’urbex). Dans un second temps, la mobilisation du patrimoine industriel se fait indirectement par le façonnage des corps induit par les pratiques alimentaires, jardinières ou autres qui se développent dans ces lieux et participent de leur transformation ou de leur régénération (i.e. food courts, halles gourmandes, cuisine collaborative et participative, jardins communautaires, etc.).
Il ne s’agit évidemment pas de suggérer une forme de capacité spatialiste qui ferait de l’espace – ici le patrimoine industriel – une donnée exclusivement déterminante des comportements sociaux mais plutôt de se placer dans la perspective ouverte par Maurice Halbwachs et trop rapidement refermée par ses successeurs. Ainsi que le suggère l’auteur de la « morphologie sociale » (1938), il s’agit de porter le regard scientifique sur les rapports qu’entretiennent les groupes sociaux avec leurs espaces. Ici, l’espace n’est pas qu’une simple variable d’analyse des faits sociaux parmi d’autres variables mais il forme, avec le temps et le langage, l’un des trois cadres sociaux fondamentaux de « la mémoire collective » (Halbwachs, 1950). La relation du fait social au fait spatial – et présentement l’« espace matière » – se schématise sous la forme d’un dialogue dont les structures sociales sont le produit. Il s’agira conséquemment de questionner l’interaction entre la société et la matière – ici le patrimoine industriel -, et il nous apparait que, dans l’inspiration d’Elias (1986) et de Le Breton (2008), le corps est un médium pertinent pour interroger cette matérialité du social. Dans la mesure où il existe un rapport étroit entre les habitudes sociales et l’aspect des lieux où l’on vit (Halbwachs, 1950) qui restent chargés de la mémoire de ceux qui les ont précédés, et où le corps est par excellence le médium d’interaction à l’environnement, il nous semble alors original et pertinent de solliciter ici des propositions sur les usages et la construction culturelle des corps dans les espaces et les lieux du patrimoine industriel.
Chaired by Christophe Gibout
This session invites case studies and policy reviews that contribute to ongoing debate and international dialogue on the role of planning systems and conservation practices in addressing the challenges of citizen engagement—conserving local interests, place attachments alongside physical remnants of industrial heritage. Over the past half century, we have witnessed the development and changing focuses of urban planning and conservation discourses addressing industrial heritage. Relevant planning policies evolve from encouraging the reuse of former factory buildings in historic urban quarters; to forming public-private partnership to finance the regeneration of historic ports and industrial waterfronts; to leveraging creative industries to valorize and rebrand underused industrial structures; to crowdsourcing public interests and community supports for safeguarding the remnants and memories of their industrial pasts. From building recycling to place making, various innovative planning instruments—such as regulatory tools, financial incentives, participatory processes or management approaches—are created to prevent the loss of industrial heritage or to capitalize on industrial remains as cultural assets for spurring economic growth.
Although planning instruments are invariably invented to circumvent particular problems at a given socio-economic context and to be implemented in a particular national planning system, successful implementation of such instruments often attracts global attentions and emulations to replicate success. Some instruments have been proven transferrable globally; others may have been adopted but substantially adapted to different cultural or socio-economic contexts. Some are at the forefront of innovation, conducting bold experiments with radical approaches to existing industrial structures and fabric so to effectuate socio-economic revitalization; others achieve success by deliberating a ‘cocktail’ of amended legislation, process and/or collaboration with actors from different sectors. What lessons can be learnt from various planning instruments that have been used to safeguard and repurpose obsolete industrial buildings and sites across the world? What can be the alternative mechanisms or procedures to prompt citizen-oriented initiatives and community-driven development, thereby circumventing the socio-economic and spatial injustice caused by the commodification or gentrification of industrial heritage and recognizing its cultural significance in the 21st century?
Chaired by Ywen Wang and Plácido González Martínez
North America has a large number of historic canals, which have been closed to commercial shipping due in part to the evolution of transportation (higher tonnage ships, trains, trucks, etc.). While some historic canals have been filled in, forgotten or disused, many have survived, in whole or in part, becoming attractive heritage sites. For some of these, the challenge is to reconcile the preservation of historic components with the need to keep their waterway accessible to navigation. This session will explore preservation modes (architectural, landscape, archaeological, etc.), new uses, and the interpretation of heritage sites that have been redeveloped in order to ensure their sustainability. This session also aims to explore, through some recent projects, new perspectives for historic canals facing the stakes and challenges of the 21st century. In so doing, beyond the North American situation, this session is designed to reflect on the situation of canals throughout the world. Papers from all disciplines or working areas are welcome.
Chaired by Alain Gelly, Luc Noppen and Matthieu Paradis
Many of the remained big scale Industrial heritage in Taiwan were the products of the Japanese colonial period between 1895 and 1945, which spans the first half of the twentieth century. This fifty-year colonial industrialisation is arguably Taiwan’s most influential industrial heritage because it began a rapid process of modernisation that is continuing today. The key to this process is the industrialisation that led to the development of main parts of the island, catalysed new communities and social patterns and structured daily life. Many of these industrial sites have now become heritage sites for tourism and creative development. Moreover, the interpretation of these sites highlights the re-contextualisation of the Taiwanese legacy from both political and economic perspectives. A society in which industrial heritage is influenced by the increasing convergence between cultural tourism, museumification (i.e. the process by which a particular heritage is recognised to the extent that it is turned into a museum) and commercialization. Furthermore, new relationships are created with the common identity of minors and local people, which reflect the patterns and trends of wider economic, social and cultural changes. The section concludes by offering a deeper understanding of the valorisation of industrial heritage in Taiwan and its influence on broader Taiwanese narratives of geopolitics and global heritage agenda.
By August 2020, in Taiwan, there are 2,664 listed heritage in relation to constructions in which include 586 industrial properties. According to the recent research, 11 coal mining landscape areas are identified into the group of potential serial landscape in Taiwan. This prototype session aims to demonstrate the coal mining industrial legacy in Taiwan from the angle of its representations, culture, territories, of its global context and of their documentation and recent development. Regarding the Taiwan Coal Ming heritage agenda, it raises the following discussion: how to shape the brand of industrial heritage together with the approach of cultural tourism that is forged, including modern cities, company towns, or the neighborhoods communities undergoing significant economic, social, and cultural changes? What are the strategies beyond mere conservation, such as the Cultural Route Program and Place-Making Policy? What are the contributions and issues of the increasingly popular storytelling? What about branding strategies, which have positioned vast requalification operations on a planetary scale, particularly in the Post–COVID-19 world?
Chaired by Kuang-Chung Lee, Hsiao-Wei Lin and Chao-shiang Li
Industrialization processes have been global from their very beginning. However, their interpretation still tends to be limited to specific locations or regions, and to specific time periods. Regularly, for example, it is stated that the industrial revolution started in Europe, from where it spread to the world, supposedly bringing technological and social progress to „less developed“ countries. Earlier periods of technology and knowledge transfer processes, that were already in place in the context of the global expansion of the European economic model from the Middle Ages, are only rarely taken into account. Crucially important historic transnational interconnectedness and actor networks as well as the fundamentally unfair power relations and unequal terms of trade also remain largely unconsidered up to date.
In our session we want to overcome Eurocentric interpretations of industrial heritage and industrial processes, and give voice to more perspectives and differing narratives on the topic. We invite colleagues from different disciplines and different world regions to share their views, in order to challenge and change the traditional viewpoints from a truly global perspective. We ask: Who benefits from industrialization, and who suffers its social and environmental consequences? And how does this reflect on the global and regional scales at the same time, affecting people and local environments in the global South and North alike?
We welcome conceptual contributions and case studies that deal with the implications of the traditional extraction model born in Europe and based on the exploitation of human and natural resources. Shifts within the global economy resulting in the consumption of ever-new territories, changing land and culturescapes, environmental disasters and access problems to primary sources such as minerals or water, are some of the aspects we would like to discuss. The struggle for control over territories and conflicting narratives related to that are also at the core, and we are most curious to hear about heritage construction processes that challenge the classic celebration story of progress and growth told by the traditional centres and dominant actors of industrialization.
With the ambition to decolonize industrial heritage interpretation and take on human and planetary responsibility, this session wants to explore conceptual and methodological approaches that enable us to understand that we are all part of the same global system, living and working in places that fulfil locally specific functions and roles that can change over time. Our aim is to open a debate on ideas and tools that we need when we seek to understand industrial processes as a global phenomenon of the past, present and future and make heritage construction processes more inclusive and outward-looking – thus, shaping our way into a global society, maybe also more just and more peaceful.
Two days after the session, we plan to resume and discuss our main findings and future perspectives in a Roundtable debate titled « Sharing industrial heritage glocally ».
Chaired by Marion Steiner and Dag Avango
According to Rodney Harrison, “in the spirit of greater cross-disciplinary engagement, there is […] a pressing need to pay more attention to non-anglophone (and, indeed, non-Western) heritage literatures, histories and traditions” (2013: xiii), when we deal with critical approaches to heritage. This need is even greater when the scientific research focuses on countries such as Romania, Czechia, Bulgaria or Poland where Industrial Heritage, for example, is ignored and where the mechanism and policies of categorization, safeguarding, and management are lacking. There are several reasons for this: 1) the association of industrial sites with totalitarian regimes that formed this European region during almost half of the 20th century, 2) a decrease in prestige and social status of working-class and industrial towns after the fall of the political regimes in the1990s, 3) the monopoly held by the “noble” heritages that still shape the local discourses, the heritage practices and policies, and
4) the conflict between environmental issues and heritage assessment. However, regardless of the path we take in this part of Europe, we realize how much landscapes, practices, identities and everyday life have been fashioned and continue to be fashioned by the industrial era. The industrial heritage is exploited as a tourism resource in western countries, in both urban and rural areas, either through interpretive tours of preserved sites, or by restoring the existing ruins for a new type of tourism experience such as creative tourism. According to Xie (2006), industrial heritage tourism is becoming a socioeconomic phenomenon. The situation is slightly different in Central and Eastern (CE) Europe, where only in recent decades have industrial sites become of interest to artist communities or tourism organizations.
The main purpose of this session is to present and examine the different meanings of industrial heritage in Central and Eastern Europe in the light of changing cultural practices, policies and preservation and to what extent it is used for the rejuvenation of communities through tourism or other activities. How is and how was Industrial Heritage perceived in this European region? How do neighborhoods and heritage communities connect with Industrial Heritage when the working-class identity is being radically redefined? What are the specific challenges of Industrial Heritage knowledge and policies in CE Europe? What are the best methods and practices to employ beyond merely preservation in order to create or reinforce individual, and community interest in modern towns, as well as industrial buildings and landscapes? Does industrial tourism contribute in the CE Europe to the ”cultural enrichment and rejuvenation” of some destinations as Forga and Valiente (2015) have suggested?
We will look to various disciplines including ethnology, tourism studies, memory studies, museology, architecture, urban studies, sociology, and cultural management to answer these questions. This session is a way to find a path towards theoretical and practical knowledge of Industrial Heritage at the margins, and to challenge and enrich the field of Heritage studies which has been developed primarily by Central and Western experts and institutions.
Chaired by Daniela Moisa and Carmen Emilia Chasovschi
The role of industrial heritage in urban development has been extensively acknowledged in guiding and legitimizing the policies and discourses implemented by governments mostly to ensure the continuity between the past, present and future. Mega-events such as sports (e.g. Olympics, World Cup, etc.), cultural (Universal Expositions and national Exhibitions), economic (trade and technology fairs) events are often opportunities used in a top-down process to reinforce the mobilization of the industrial past to promote place branding, new and modern urban development and implement societal change. The urban economic and political elites are generally the mediating actors that translate and embed global objectives into local realities. Urban entrepreneurialism is iconic of such public-private interests not only for infrastructure and landmark development, but also in terms of policies regarding sustainability as well as better lifestyle for the inhabitants. The vision and objectives of material and immaterial transformations referring to social engineering for some scholars or supported by sustainability and inclusive development goals for others have to be diffused, shared and finally embodied by citizens and inhabitants. However, the empowerment (or the voice) of inhabitants varies from debates and tensions up to conflicts depending on the political system (democracy vs authoritarian states), poverty and dispossession.
This panel aims at drawing a comparative perspective that addresses the relationships between the organization of mega-event and industrial heritage for urban regeneration and growth in order to identify common trends and local variations. The comparison incorporates cases studies from different periods of industrialization since the 19th century, types of industries (textile, automobile, steel, etc.) and industrial cities in Western world (Western Europe-North America) and emerging countries such as post-socialist countries (Eastern Europe, Asia) and others (Latin America, Africa).
The four following themes are expected to be questioned:
• The coupling between mega-events and urban growth has been often considered as an epitomized model of post-industrial development based on consumption and leisure. Industrial heritage functions in many cases (Beijing, London, Torino, etc.) as a place branding device to build creative districts or new areas for tourism at a global scale. However, the economic positive impacts of mega-events need still to be questioned. To what extend do exist alternative models or can mega-events be better used for a more locally oriented development and social needs?
• What are the narratives, tools and policies implemented by governments to legitimate the events and shape citizens in order to adopt civilized and social practices that secure the organization and venue of such mega-events?
• What are the realities and changes of people lives induced by the long planning and organization of mega-events? Do we always observe a capture of events by elites and discrepancies between wealthiest, middle-class and dispossessed (population displacement, social networks loss, resistance, selective and divising citizenships, etc.)?
• How sustainability and environmental issues are addressed, defined, by and for whom? Since sustainability has become a key component of the organization of mega-events, what kind and in what extend industrial sites and heritage are mobilized to contribute to sustainable goals through environmental, social and political programs?
Chaired by Florence Graezer and Thierry Theurillat
This session focuses on company towns from the perspective of urban planning. “Company towns” are here defined as single-enterprise planned communities, usually centered around a single industry, where a company commissions an urban plan, builds housing for its workers, and sets up recreational, commercial, institutional or community facilities. While these are now endangered by a second wave of deindustrialization, we observe that, aside studies or monographs of individual towns that populate the literature, no reference framework exists that would allow for their analysis or their preservation as built environments as a whole. The purpose of this session is to start to build such a framework, and contribute to the “reloading” of industrial heritage corpuses and practices by bringing in a very little-known corpus under the light of a seldom explored paradigm, modern urban planning, that itself poses new challenges to the habits and policies of heritage preservation. In that sense, exploring 20th century company towns can contribute to both the redeployment of the research on industrial heritage and to the knowledge on how industrial heritage can contribute to a sustainable urban development today.
In order to do so, this session calls for papers that look at the historical and spatial factors that link company towns beyond region or country borders, especially in terms of urban planning. It thus proposes to consider planning as an art of making places (instead of managing spaces), from the original design of company towns to the preservation issues that mark the processes, actions and intentions of urban planning today. Three lines of inquiry are specifically suggested: a) the making of symbols that give meaning to the living environment, for example through the use of vernacular or historical built forms; b) the circulation of ideas and theories between company towns; and c) the technical, economical and legal means that have given them a tangible form or that support their preservation as urban heritage and as meaningful places nowadays.
Chaired by Lucie K. Morisset