| George Town: The living heritage city |
| Tuesday, 04 August 2009 10:57 |
|
By Neil Khor. PART ONE: MAJOR CHANGES
The Penang government of Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng has consulted widely with George Town’s many stakeholders, and will continue to do so. Inevitably, any change is bad news for somebody, but the intention is to work towards a general consensus that will be of greatest benefit to George Town’s long-term future, both financially and culturally as a World Heritage Site (WHS). This means developers, property owners, clan associations, religious organisations, heritage conservationists, academics, architects, the heritage commission, urban planners, municipal authorities, and also international bodies like Unesco and the International Council on Monuments and Sites (Icomos) must play their part. These stakeholders are vocal, well-organised and well-connected. Some have federal governmental-backing while others command the power of public opinion. Yet, all play a pivotal role in keeping the city alive. If a city is to be a living, evolving thing, then it follows that public participation is the very essence of its existence.A typical morning scene on the streets of George Town Noted urban planner Prof H Peter Oberlander of the University of British Columbia’s community and regional planning department, sums it up best: “It is through participatory processes that a city develops visions and plans, monitors the implementation of its plans and adjusts to changing circumstances.” Historically, George Town always had a healthy and diverse population. The city’s heart was in the central business district along Beach Street, while administrative decisions were made at Light Street where the State Legislative Assembly and Municipal Council sat. There was also an interesting mix of different ethnic enclaves housing the city’s Malay, Chinese, Indian, Eurasian, Armenian, Jewish and other smaller communities. There was also class diversity, with small traders’ shophouses in the south and middle-class homes in the north. All shared common spaces like public markets, religious establishments, theatres, concert halls and parks. In recent years, economic development has depended on the electronics industry, with the manufacture of electrical and electronic products overshadowing the older entrepot economy. George Town, as a port, fell into a steady decline with larger ships needing deeper water, and handling facilities for containers. Even Butterworth (opposite George Town on the mainland) has limited possibilities for expansion. Public transport, and later, motorcycles and cars have made it possible for many to leave the city centre, and set up homes in the suburbs. Thus, a new generation grew up whose links to the city were largely sentimental. Their grandparents had their homes there, but their parents left for the new suburbs. Many of them went overseas for an education. Today, this third generation is quite removed from the inner-city life of George Town, yet they have developed an awareness that George Town’s crumbling architecture is the principal focus, and reminder of their roots. It is this feeling of belonging that is fuelling the heritage conservation movement. Over the years, conservationists developed their focus from built heritage, to the wider remit of living cultures. This was a great challenge, because city life had changed so much with the transformation of Penang’s economy from trade to manufacturing. A lot of the charm of George Town, these conservationists claim, lies with the diversity of the city’s population. At the same time, the city’s demography changed, as people moved to the suburbs. A vicious cycle of impoverishment and decay set in as a generation, either too old or too poor to move, became the core residents, while the close-knit and inter-connected lives of its citizens gradually faded. Rent control, which came into effect in the late 1960s, secured the city for many small businesses and their associated workers, but it also froze out development and made adequate maintenance unaffordable. Many of that first generation who owned property in the city, now live in the suburbs. In fact, some 90% of George Town remains in private hands. But incentives to maintain or even develop their properties along conservation lines were entirely lacking. For 40 years, rent controls ensured the steady decay of the old town. Master tenants often sub-let to as many as 10 others, taking away the bulk of the generated revenue. Some of these landlords had evolved into family trusts, maintaining a traditional, almost beneficent, attitude, but with little reason to alter the status quo. The net result was that these properties were left to decline slowly. Saw Teik Lim, whose family owns property along Weld Quay, is frustrated about both the economics and politics of heritage. “As property owners, we want to be consulted when government makes policy that affects us,” he says. “It seems the government is always held to ransom by those whose voices are loudest. The people who own property here, or those who work and live here, are seldom consulted,” he adds. His group of friends, some developers and inner city property owners, agree with him that both the federal and state governments need to develop a comprehensive policy when managing the George Town WHS. Datuk Ong Gim Huat, a developer and former chairman of the Housing Developers Association, believes that there should not only be more consultation but also more controls. “There should be stricter and proper controls on the use of the buildings. In the long run, the controls will benefit the owners,” he says. But a stick without carrots will not work. “The federal government should provide lump sum grants and tax incentives like deductions from income tax, while the state government should allow cheaper assessment, grant transfer and development rights and establish a one-stop centre for faster approvals, if plans are submitted by consultant architects,” Ong adds. When asked about the conservation movement, the frustration becomes palpable. “It is very nice for conservationists to tell us what to do but they have not explained how we can sustain our properties economically, after we have made the big investment to repair them,” says Steven Ong, a former general manager of a company and now a developer in Penang. Saw, who also owns property along Kimberley Street in George Town, gave an example of his predicament. “I have an old couple living in one of my shophouses. I don’t charge them market rate rent because we have developed a special relationship,” he says. “But recently, the roof has been giving problems. Just to repair it costs RM100,000. If I were to invest that money, I will have to recoup via higher rent but the old couple will lose their home,” adds Saw. Whilst most agree that WHS status is good, those affected also have to consider their economic situation. “Not all inner city property owners are rich. Can the lorry driver who happens to have inherited a run-down property maintain his home to international standards? George Town is a living city and there are many people in such a situation,” says Ong, Those into conservation believe the solution lies in education. Saw feels that Penang’s property owners are not ready for WHS status. Many of them have a totally different mindset, which is to “put in a bit, but extract the most”. Heritage conservation requires the reverse where one invests a certain amount of capital but cannot expect to maximise profits in the short term. The benefits of being on a prime site can only evolve as interest is reawakened, and renewed interest in the city centre evolves. “The Cheong Fatt-Tze mansion is one such example. Its owners did not do it for the money. It was done out of their special interest in heritage conservation although the long-term economic viability of the project was addressed from the start,” says Saw. Similarly, heritage conservationists, many of whom do not own properties in the inner city, also need to educate themselves with the problems and challenges of owning heritage properties. “They must understand that what may be a cause to them actually affects the livelihood of many people,” Saw adds. “Not every heritage property owner has the capital or the inclination to do what they recommend, especially in a city where rules are not implemented consistently and there are no tangible incentives,” he also says. On the governmental front, Saw thinks there is too much politics and too little political will. “We have developers given approval to build next door to us and now they are slapped with a stop-work order. Do you think we are going to do anything now?,” he asks. Saw understands that the current state government inherited this problem but feels the new administration must have the political will to find proper solutions. The challenge is to change the mindset of property owners, and give them a feeling for the real potential that good government can deliver. The Penang government is now preparing a local plan which would include a World Heritage Management Plan for the city. But as plans go, it will need a lot of public consultation before property owners and tenants are willing to embrace it. Have they tried to get their views known? “Yes, many times, but to deaf ears!” says Ong. However, Saw admits that previously he took little interest in heritage conservation but has since realised that there must be more dialogue. Ong puts it best when he stressed again the importance of education and creating awareness. “The present tenants must survive within the inner city. If their businesses fail, the whole character of the inner city will change,” he says. Saw is similarly concerned about going big on tourism. “Do we have the carrying capacity for all the thousands of tourists who are supposed to come here? My selfish interest is finding a parking space but imagine the huge tourist buses chugging down our 19th century roads?” he says. Although there is a lot of pessimism in this conservation-minded group, their willingness to tackle these problems is a positive sign. Every city has a life force of its own, whether for good or ill. A vibrant city never sits still. It is constantly changing. It resists attempts to pickle it by sprouting all sorts of new lifestyles. It is the sum of its citizens and their oftentimes conflicting needs. Happily, among this group, there is room for dialogue. “Talk to us, tell us how we can improve our properties without sacrificing our tenants and how all this heritage listing will benefit us in the long term,” says Saw before he left to join his friends for tea.
Janet Pillay is senior lecturer at Universiti Sains Malaysia and heads Arts Ed, an organisation specialising in programme development and training in non-formal arts education, heritage education and cultural sustainability. Dr Neil Khor speaks to her about George Town’s living heritage. Neil Khor: We know the views of property owners, developers and conservationists. As Arts Ed deals with the people who actually work and live in the city, can you tell us what the feeling on the ground is with regard to George Town’s inscription as a World Heritage Site (WHS)? One important aspect of George Town’s listing is cultural diversity. Do you think this includes the urban poor and migrant workers? If so, what can be done for them? You have been at the forefront of consensus building, talking to the government, property owners and developers. What are the main areas of contention? If there are conflicting interests, there must also surely be some form of middle-ground. What are the areas that will allow stakeholders to come together? Can you give us an example of a project that you have done that brings people together? ** Republished with permission. This article first appeared in Issue 762 , July 6-12, 2009 of Options, The Edge Malaysia. Dr Neil Khor believes in sustainable initiatives in heritage conservation. Traveller, writer of glossy books and political commentary, he is currently a post-doctoral fellow in history at Universiti Malaya. Related articles
Comments (0)
 Write comment
|
It has been a year since George Town was declared a Unesco World Heritage Site. On the surface, things seem to have stayed the same, but important changes are already underway, although mostly at the planning stage just now. Later, as these plans are implemented, people will see the changes for themselves.
PART TWO: JANET PILLAY - AT THE FORE FRONT OF CONSENSUS BUILDING
Show/Hide comments
Show/Hide comment form
About us | Related Info | Copyright © Sympologic Sdn Bhd. All Rights Reserved. |
 |