Value Based Decision Making for Conservation. Canadian Studies Heritage Conservation Programme Symposium.
November 18, 2005, Ottawa. Organised by the School of Canadian Studies Heritage Conservation Programme,
Carleton University
“Why are you protecting this crap?”: Perceptions of Value for an
Invented heritage—a Saskatchewan Perspective
Bruce Dawson
Supervisor, Canada-Saskatchewan Historic Places Initiative
Department of Culture, Youth and Recreation, Government of Saskatchewan
2005
Introductioni
Several years ago, while I was working as an
interpretive guide at a major First Nations rock art
site in Alberta, a tourist responded to my detailed
explanation of one of the panels with the retort, “Why
are you protecting this crap? It‟s not like it‟s the
Mona Lisa or anything.” At the time, I thought this
was just an outburst of an ill-informed and/or racist
visitor. I responded with a general commentary
about the importance of heritage and how the
carvings provided a tangible link to the past—the
usual response when questions arose regarding the
significance of the site. Whether or not the visitor
accepted my explanation I cannot say, but he made
no further comments during the rest of the tour.
However, unlike most of the questions and comments
I received from visitors, this one continues to
reverberate with me. In recent years, I find I use the
question as a touchstone in my research work.
Indeed, the comment can be viewed as indicative of
two large issues in the field of heritage
conservation—how do you determine which places
are historically significant and how do you rationalize
the changing views of this “significance” over time?
This second question has been an issue for heritage
officials in Canada since the launch of the Historic
Places Initiative (HPI) in 2001. As a collaborative
initiative among the federal, provincial and territorial
governments, the HPI is a multi-component program
aimed at preserving Canada‟s historic places through
education, conservation advice and financial
incentives.ii A key component of the HPI is the
Canadian Register of Historic Places (CRHP), an
online database of places recognized as significant by
the program partners. Nominations to the CRHP are
to feature value-based statements of significance for
each of these places, many of which were recognized
many years or even decades ago.
The work taking place in Saskatchewan offers a good
example of how these issues are being approached.
In 1980 the province passed The Heritage Property
Act(1980) which empowered both municipalities and
the province to recognize heritage properties. Since
The Act was introduced, over 700 places have been
designated as heritage property, including 43 by the
Province. How provincial officials have interpreted
and applied the broad concept of heritage value
featured in the 25 year old act will be key to this
discussion. Also considered will be the current
challenge of the Historic Places Initiative to look at
the heritage properties recognized under The Act and
the values for which they were formally recognized,
in light of the current generation‟s perceptions of
heritage significance.
What is Heritage?
Before one can begin to grapple with the ways and
means of determining what places constitute our
heritage, one must understand the term. Heritage,
originating from the word inheritance, was used by
past generations to refer to property and other
tangible items which passed from one generation to
the next via will or gift. In the years after World War
II, the term emerged from the domain of probate
courts and became associated with the conservation
and preservation of historic properties at the local,
national and international level.iii In Canada, the
identity-seeking evoked by the cultural upheaval of
the 1960‟s, and the period of reflection that
accompanied 1967 centennial celebrations generated,
in the words of Jean Friesen, “a growing perception
that „heritage‟ is a common inheritance and that no
one group or individual should „own the past‟.”iv
During the 1970s and 80s, numerous definitions of
heritage emerged in Canada, all seeking to refine
meaning of the word while, at the same time,
contributing a certain vagueness to the definition that
enables anyone to feel validated under the term.v
Along these lines, The Act defines heritage property
as that being “of interest for its architectural,
historical, cultural, environmental, archaeological,
palaeontological, aesthetic or scientific value.”vi It is
this drive for inclusiveness which underscores the
essentiality of modern heritage as an invented
construct. While heritage can be composed of both
tangible and intangible items, the meaning of these
items is not an unquestionable fact or concept but,
rather, an invented construct of the authors—
developed to suit their specific needs. Many authors
have referred to this invented nature of the term,
perhaps most directly philosopher Uffe Juul Jensen
who asserts “heritage is not always something
already present in a culture. It is, on the contrary,
selected, negotiated, and perhaps even constructed by
the heirs.”vii In response to the vague lists of
descriptors which pose as a definition for heritage, I
put forth the suggestion that heritage can be
summarized as those visions, processes and objects of
the past that we choose to engage with and perpetuate
for the future. Capturing both the tangible and
intangible, this definition is steeped in the idea of
active agency by the heritage determiner along the
lines suggested in the Deschambault Charter. As
well, this definition embraces the invented nature of
the term, suggesting that we choose what elements of
the past we want to grapple with and pass on to our
heirs, thus constructing or inventing the heritage of
our present generation. As such, it is an
improvement on the catch-all mentality that has
plagued the term in recent times and offers some
semblance of structure while not inhibiting its ability
to shift with the priorities of the author.
How has Heritage Been Created?
The process by which individuals, communities and
nations have chosen the items and places they wish to
honour and preserve as heritage has evolved over
time. For buildings, landscapes and other places, the
process of choice from the 1700s until the 1950s was,
by and large, individualistic and arbitrary.viii
Seemingly the only guidepost for those in the western
world was that the place should be in some way
educational to society at large.ix In most cases, the
focus of this “education” was to provide a tangible
reflection of the discipline of history‟s then preoccupation with the political and economic legacies
of white men.x Further, when this thinking was
applied to buildings, there was an “overemphasis
given to artistic, architectural and/or monumental
aspects of single buildings or ensembles.”xi Such an
attitude is evident in the words of words of John
Vanbrugh, who, during a 1709 campaign to preserve
Woodstock Manor in England, wrote to the Duchess
of Marlborough, stating:
There is perhaps no one thing, which the
most Polite part of Mankind have more
universally agreed in; than the Vallue [sic]
they have ever set upon the Remains of
distant Times. Nor amongst the Severall [sic]
kinds of those Antiquitys [sic], are there any
so much regarded, as those of Buildings;
Some for their Magnificence, or Curious
Workmanship; An others; as they move more
lively and pleasing Reflections (than History
without their Aid can do) on the Person who
have Inhabited them; On the Remarkable
things which have been transacted in them,
Or the extraordinary Occasions of Erecting
them.xii The results of this form of
conservation was an “often haphazard and
arbitrary selection of protected elements in a
historic city centre, and the marginalization
of „less important‟ areas.”xiii
However, embodied in Vanburgh‟s passionate plea, is
the concept of historic places and conservation efforts
having value to society. Defined by Oxford as the
“worth, desirability, or utility, or the qualities on
which these depend” and, alternatively, as “one‟s
principles, priorities or standards”xiv, value is a preexisting and multi-layered form of critique. Most
commonly used to describe the economic worth of an
object or idea, value is a universally-accepted concept
that can be applied more broadly, including as the
result of processes to evaluate heritage resources. In
1902, art historian Alois Riegl put forward what is
generally accepted to be the first listing of heritage
value typologies, suggesting age, historical,
commemorative, use and newness values as
categories through which an analyst could form a
constructive and comparative critique.xv Sir John
Summerson furthered these thoughts in relation to
buildings in 1949, suggesting:
Complicated as they are, they [values] can be sorted
out and here, to start with, is a rough list of types of
buildings which may in certain circumstances deserve
protection:
1.
The building which is a work of art: the product
of a distinct and outstanding creative mind.
2.
The building which is not a distinct creation in
this sense but possesses in a pronounced form
the characteristic virtues of the school of design
which produced it.
3.
The building which, of no great artistic merit, is
either of significant antiquity or a composition of
fragmentary beauties welded together in the
course of time.
2
4.
The building which has been the scene of great
events or the labours of great men.
5.
The building whose only virtue is that in a bleak
tract of modernity it alone gives depth in
time.xvi
At the same time, the necessities of the post-World
War II reconstruction, combined with a desire to
reaffirm national identities in the aftermath of the
conflict, heightened the involvement of government
and publicly-funded institutions in the heritage
conservation process. This shift of patrons resulted
in an impetus for more objective thought to be
applied in the choice of places and buildings to be
recognized and/or conserved. During this period, the
key process that emerged to meet this goal of
objectivity was a value-based approach. By 1964, the
concept was sufficiently accepted to entrench it as a
founding principle in the preamble to the earliermentioned ICOMOS Venice Charter. In a similar
fashion, the 1972 UNESCO World Heritage
Convention put forth guidelines to recognize places
of “outstanding universal value from the point of
view of history, art or science.”xvii
In the early 1970s, organizations in Canada began
promoting and using value-based evaluation tools,
many of which featured empirical scoring systems to
assist with the decision making process.xviii This
discussion was broadened in 1979 by Harold Kalman
in the booklet The Evaluation of Historic
Buildings.xix Written to “take some of the mystique
out of architectural value judgements, and to show
that these may be made rationally, objectively and
confidently,”xx Kalman proposed a five-criteria
(architecture, history, environment, usability and
integrity), four-grade scale evaluation form that can
be applied to any property. Within each of the
criteria, a number of sub-criteria are scored so that a
final total may be arrived at, which “will form the
basis for decisions as to its future in the context of a
conservation plan.”xxi Although the completion of
the form was to be based on historic research, the
form did not call for the inclusion of this information;
only the allocation of a score for each category.
Other concerns were that the criteria were elitecentered, requiring professional consultation to be
fully addressed, and that it was too highly-weighted
towards architecture, with this criterion accounting
for over one-third of the points on a typical form.
Despite these shortcomings, the document was wellreceived and distributed and the Kalman evaluation
technique became the standard for heritage
conservation programs of many municipal and
provincial governments across Canada, including
Saskatchewan.
At the same time many were adopting the Kalman
empirical system, a shift in the application of heritage
value was taking place on the world stage. In 1981,
Australia ICOMOS issued a revision of their Charter
for the Conservation of Places of Cultural
Significance. This document, commonly called the
Burra Charter, suggested that “the aim of
conservation is to retain or recover the cultural
significance of a place…” with cultural significance
defined as the “aesthetic, historic, scientific or social
value for past, present or future generations.” xxii
The companion document, entitled Guidelines to the
Burra Charter: Cultural Significance further defines
the concept, offering definitions of the value
typologies as well as how to apply them in
completing two written components, the assessment
of cultural significance and the statement of cultural
significance.xxiii The Australian system differs from
Kalman‟s system in several ways. It weights each
value type equally (though some values can be more
important to particular sites), can be applied to all
types of space, not just buildings, and, most
importantly, compels the evaluator to summarize the
findings in a succinct statement that is “clear and
pithy, expressing simply why the place is of value but
not restating the physical or documentary
evidence.”xxiv The result of this text-based analysis
is a document that you can link to the objectives and
ideas featured in a heritage management plan as
opposed to the providing a number that only really
enables comparison of any one place to other
similarly evaluated places, or to say yes/no to the
conservation project because the number is higher
than some arbitrary cut-off point.
The cultural significance approach captured public
favour and by the mid-1990s, organizations in the
United Kingdom, the United States and many other
nations had adopted the process for evaluating their
heritage resources. The National Trust in the UK
adopted the statement of significance in 1996 as the
basis for their heritage management program, arguing
A Statement of Significance explains why the
National Trust holds a property. It explains
what matters and why. It expresses its 'spirit
of place' and summarises the features and
attributes which are considered at the time of
writing to be most significant and which the
Trust should seek to conserve. It will never
be perfect but it should be as good as
possible.xxv
3
The period was also marked by the emergence of
several competing value typologies, each with
overlapping, intertwined criteria designed to satisfy
the heritage reality of the author, and by the creation
of the Nara Document on Authenticity, which
promoted the concepts of self-actualization, but in a
culturally-truthful manner.xxvi
Although there had been wide-spread adoption of the
empirical system in Canada during the 1980s, this
period also witnessed research and usage of the
cultural significance approach by both federal and
provincial governments.xxvii By the mid 1990s,
Parks Canada had adopted a form of this approach in
its 1994 Cultural Resource Management Policy,
which called for the identification of heritage values
to facilitate the crafting of a Commemorative
Integrity Statement for each National Historic
Site.xxviii The widespread usage of the cultural
significance approach did not emerge across Canada
until 2001 with the launching of the Historic Places
Initiative. Each of the federal, provincial and
territorial partners is responsible for preparing
Statements of Significance for the formallyrecognized historic places within their jurisdiction
which identify and explain the heritage value of each
place. Although only four years old, the HPI has
resulted in a substantial shift in the use of the cultural
significance approach as provincial and local
governments have joined with the federal government
in adopting this method to recognize places of
heritage value.
Creating Heritage in Saskatchewan
Saskatchewan has a long history of preserving places
associated with its heritage. The efforts of the
residents of Saskatoon in 1911 to relocate and restore
the community‟s first school house, a mere six years
after the formation of the province and 23 years after
the erection of the building, are a testament to this
long-standing concern for tangible objects of
heritage. A spate of heritage building demolitions or
near demolitions in the late 1960s and early 1970s
across Saskatchewan, and indeed across Canada,
prompted the provincial government to consider the
creation of some form of legislation to protect
historic buildings. After significant study and two
ineffective acts, the province passed The Heritage
Property Act in 1980 (hereafter, The Act). One of the
most encompassing legislations of its type in Canada
at the time of its creation, The Act remains a
powerful piece of heritage legislation. Today, The
Act is administered by the Heritage Resources
Branch (HRB) of the Department of Culture, Youth
and Recreation.
Intertwined with the history of The Act has been the
evolving concept of value-based evaluation. The first
reference to values can be found in a draft of the
“Evaluation of Government Buildings” form
developed in November, 1976.xxix A study of
available documents on the methods to evaluate
heritage property, undertaken by the then
Saskatchewan Department Culture and Youth in
1978, summarized that those systems which were
non-quantitative in approach featured three basic
groups of criteria—historical value, architectural
value and practical value.xxx The study went on to
recommend the use of quantitative systems as more
appropriate for Saskatchewan‟s needs.xxxi
In 1980, The Act outlined the province‟s desire to
protect heritage properties significant for any one of
eight previously-identified values. Surprisingly, the
new evaluation form that was drafted in March 1981
only contains one reference to the term “values”.xxxii
Rather, the Introduction outlines how evaluation must
be based on “architectural and historical attributes”
and “elements of environmental and economic
viability”, with a heavy scoring emphasis on the
architectural component.xxxiii Furthermore, the
Introduction, which features a quantitative evaluation
adapted from Kalman, also states that “the evaluation
is clearly separated into sections of heritage
significance and viability. It is the desire here, to
differentiate the academic side of the exercise, from
the practical realities of conserving the site.”xxxiv
The inclusion of this statement reflects one of the
earlier-mentioned concerns with this form of
evaluation - a reliance on the input of specialists to
complete the process.
Paralleling the establishment and implementation of
the evaluation process was the development of a
thematic framework to guide the research and
recognition process. Drawn from similar studies
done by Parks Canada (1979-80) and the Province of
Alberta (1980), the Saskatchewan plan broke down
regional history into “its component parts” so that
priorities could be determined for formally
recognizing places based upon four categories:
chronological thematic, human activities,
geographical and site type.xxxv Although neither
this 1983 plan, nor several subsequent revisions, were
ever officially adopted as Department policy, they
were used informally help guide designations made
under the heritage property program.
The evaluation form, criteria and guidelines, except
for a few minor corrections and term clarifications,
remained unchanged until 2002. In that year the
4
process of nomination for Provincial Heritage
Property was changed to facilitate and encourage the
submission of complete nominations from the general
public, in place of the former system of Department
staff researching and preparing all submissions. With
this change, it became apparent that the existing
quantitative evaluation system was problematic as it
relied too heavily on “expert” architectural and
economic viability analysis and offered limited
opportunities to draw out the community values
which were driving the nominations. As well, the old
system was not easily adapted to archaeological sites,
landscapes and movable property, all eligible for
designation under The Act. As a result, an overhaul
of the evaluation process was commenced. Some
initial tweaking of the program guidelines and
objectives resulted in the quantitative scoring system
being replaced by three broad categories of
evaluation for proposed Provincial Heritage
Properties: conveyance of heritage-related value,
representation of important social, cultural,
economic, or political history, and demonstration of
historical association with persons, or events of
significance to Saskatchewan.xxxvi The growing
knowledge of and experience with heritage value
evaluation, largely a result of the work undertaken by
HRB staff in drafting Statements of Significance for
the CRHP, led to a thorough review of the Provincial
Heritage Property designation program and its
associated documents beginning in late 2004. Now
in draft form, the package of documents outlines a
new system for evaluating properties based on their
provincial significance in five value categories:
historic, cultural, architectural, scientific, and
aesthetic. The nomination form clearly spells out
definitions for each of these values and asks the
nominator to identify why the property is believed to
be provincially significant under each category. The
evaluation form mimics the nomination form,
requiring the Saskatchewan Heritage Advisory Board
(SHAB) to answer yes or no to provincial
significance in each category. SHAB must, for each
category, also articulate why they do or do not think a
property meets the significance requirement. To be
recommended for designation, the property only has
to be considered provincially significant in one
category. Other factors, such as site viability,
condition and adherence to the thematic plan are also
considered in a yes/no manner, but separately, so as
to clearly distinguish the determination of heritage
value from any evaluation of the changeable or noncritical aspects of the property. This decision to
move to a more open evaluation process is more than
just a policy change. Rather, it is a reflection of the
trend towards more participatory government
programs and heightened appreciation for the diverse
range of individuals, architectural styles and activities
valued and recognized at the community level.xxxvii
The new guidelines and forms have recently been
reviewed by SHAB and further consultation is being
discussed prior to full implementation.
The move towards the cultural significance approach
is not only taking place in regard to Provincial
Heritage Properties but also in relation to the
Municipal Heritage Property program. Since 2003,
the HRB has recruited a handful of staff to work with
the officials from Saskatchewan‟s municipalities to
draft Statements of Significance for the heritage
properties they designated so as to meet the
information needs for the CRHP. This is often
challenging work. Saskatchewan has over 400
municipal governments which have designated
heritage properties since 1980, many of which are
only responsible for one or two designations. Many
of the bylaws, orders and other documents developed
at the time of recognition provide poor or no
justification as to why the property was designated.
In other cases, these reasons for recognition have
been lost in the annals of time. Current municipal
officials are often unaware of the reasons for
designation and, sometimes, unaware that the
property was even designated. In other cases, the
reasons have changed, become outdated and/or new
reasons have been suggested. To meet these
challenges and complete the Statements of
Significance, the HRB has three approaches. HRB
staff will research and write approximately 70% of
the Statements, primarily for those properties located
in small or rural communities. Those municipalities
which have larger numbers of designations, and staff
tasked to work with their heritage property
designations, will be contracted to complete about
10% of the total. Individuals and organizations with
interest or expertise in heritage properties will be
contracted by the HRB to complete the remaining
20% of the statements.
Key to work being undertaken by the HRB,
particularly with so many of the statements being
generated by Department staff, is avoiding the
perceptions of elitism in the work. Heeding the
advise offered by Randall Mason who suggested, “a
professional study of values must be done in parallel
with understanding and consulting with the
stakeholders—i.e. the people and groups doing the
valuing,”xxxviii everybody involved in the writing
process is directed to work with a community-first
approach. All properties are visited. The designating
authority and property owners are contacted to
discuss the heritage values held by the property and
reasons for designation listed on the bylaws, with
5
others in the community contacted at the suggestion
or request of the municipality, or as dictated by the
research. As well, all completed statements are sent
to the municipality to be approved by Council before
being sent to CRHP. In doing so, not only does HRB
ensure that the community is involved in the
interpretation of their heritage and that the same
authority which bestowed the designation as
representative of the community has an opportunity
to provide the final approval for the statements, but
also that new concepts related to the cultural
significance approach are disseminated. While the
level of outreach and partnership building involved in
this process is a change for the HRB, as Kate Clark of
English Heritage stated “all of this means new ways
of working for heritage practitioners. We have had to
become facilitator rather than dictators. Site
management planning has become a process of
articulating rather than imposing value, of learning to
stand back and listen to people.”xxxix However, the
recent comment received from a rural municipal
official that “if the government says it‟s right, then it
must be right” in response to a Statement of
Significance sent for approval, suggests that there is
still work to be done to make the communities feel a
part of the program.xl
The work of the Heritage Resources Branch in
relation to the Heritage Property program offers a
good example of this transformation. During the 25
years since the implementation of The Heritage
Property Act in 1980, the program has moved from
recognition being driven by architectural and viability
attributes, usually determined by academics, toward
recognition based on broad and equally-ranked values
articulated by the community. In doing so, Branch
officials have strived to move to the role of
facilitators in assisting individuals and communities
to work with specialists in recognizing and
conserving heritage properties and articulating the
values of these places and objects. This is a crucial
step. As Hareven and Langenbach point out,
This is not to deny the value of the scholar‟s
definition of worth, based on comparative
historical or architectural criteria. But
conservation broadly considered must
juxtapose general criteria of social history and
architectural analysis with the meaning that
buildings have for local rehabilitation in terms
of personal experience. Preservation is in a
sense a community act. It is as important as a
process as in its results, contributing to the
mutual education of people who see beauty and
value in terms of architecture or of a building‟s
place in the history of engineering, technology,
or town planning, and those who know simply
that the buildings and places are meaningful in
terms of their own lives.xlii
Last Thoughts
At the outset of this paper, the park visitor‟s comment
(“why are you protecting this crap”) was held up as
an example of the conflicting views of heritage that
exist in society. Indeed, the term heritage means
many things to many people. The evolution of the
definition over time has blurred it to the point that
heritage may be inclusive of almost anything, or,
looked at in another way, as “far too ambiguous to
permit simple definition.”xli What has become
clear through this process is that heritage is not
intrinsic within old things but, rather, a constructed
ideal, an invention created by each generation for its
purposes. If the next generation chooses to accept the
items passed on to them as their heritage, that is their
business—not something we can force them to do.
Our objective should be to best articulate the values
of those properties we have chosen as our heritage so
that those in the future can make an informed choice
about which properties they will choose to perpetuate
as their heritage. The ways of assessing the
significance of heritage places have evolved in
consort with the definition of heritage. What was
once the domain of chance and individual, usually
elite, opinion has emerged as a highly structured,
more inclusive process that seeks to draw on the
value judgements of the masses.
While there is still more work to do, the program
changes implemented during the past few years are
working to encourage greater engagement by people
and communities in evaluating and re-inventing their
heritage and ensuring that values held by the people
of Saskatchewan around their heritage are better
understood and appreciate.
i
The views and opinions expressed in this paper are
those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those
of the Government of Saskatchewan or the Government
of Canada. I would like to thank Victoria Angel,
Registrar, Canadian Register of Historic Places and Joan
Kannigan-Fairen, former Senior Heritage Policy
Advisor, Saskatchewan Department of Culture, Youth
and Recreation, for their invaluable comments on the
earlier drafts of this paper.
ii
Peter Frood, “The Historic Places Initiative: A
National Framework to Conserve Canada‟s Built
Heritage” Plan (Summer, 2003), 29-32.
6
iii
Michael Kammen, In the Past Lane: Historical
Perspectives on American Culture (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1997), 215; Preamble”, The Venice
Charter. International Council on Monuments and
Sites (ICOMOS), 1964 (as viewed at
http://www.icomos.org/venice_charter.html, April 10,
2005); Convention Concerning the Protection of
Cultural and Natural Heritage,” United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 1972
(as viewed at http://whc.unesco.org/archive/conventionen.pdf April 10, 2005)
iv
Jean Friesen, “Introduction: Heritage Futures,” Prairie
Forum, Vol 15, No 2 (Fall 1990), 195.
v
Amongst the multitude of definitions that emerged
during this period, key are those offered in Penina
Coopersmith with Richard Hall, Heritage by Design
(Ottawa: Ministry of State Urban Affairs Canada,
1977), 12-13; Louis Applebaum and Jacques Hebert,
co-chairmen, Report of the Federal Cultural Policy
Review Committee (Ottawa: Department of
Communications, 1982), 105; “Charter for the
Preservation of Quebec‟s Heritage: The Deschambault
Declaration”, ICOMOS French Speaking Committee,
1982 (as viewed at
http://www.icomos.org/docs/deschambault.html.en,
April 10, 2005), Keith Neufeld, Prairie Provinces
Caucus Final Report (Regina: Parks Canada &
Canadian Plains Research Centre, 1985), 2.
Before Williamsburg (New York: G.P. Putnam‟s Sons,
1965), 299-300.
x
King, Hickman, Berg, Anthropology in Historic
Preservation: 13; Hosmer, Presence of the Past: 301;
Don Kerr, “In Defence of the Past: A History of
Saskatchewan Heritage Preservation, 1922-1983”
Prairie Forum Vol 15 NO.2 (Fall 1990), 283-284. In
his article, Kerr identifies the initial list of buildings
considered for heritage protection conservation by the
Province, drafted in 1948. The list consists of Hudson‟s
Bay Company and North West Mounted Police forts, an
1885 battlefield, a public school, a post office and a
number of houses of the provinces early Anglo-Saxon
elite.
xi
Zanchetti and Jokilehto, “Values and Urban
Conservation Planning: Some Reflections on Principles
and Definitions,” Journal of Architectural Conservation
No 1 (March 1997), 37.
xii
From The Complete Works of Sir John Vanbrugh, Vol
4 (1928), page 29 as in Sir John Summerson, Heavenly
Mansions (London: The Cresset Press, 1949), 220.
xiii
Zanchetti and Jokilehto, “Values and Urban
Conservation Planning: Some Reflections on Principles
and Definitions,” Journal of Architectural Conservation
No 1 (March 1997), 37.
xiv
"The Heritage Property Act," Statutes of
Saskatchewan, 1979-80, Chapter H-2.2, s 2.i(1980).
The Pocket Oxford Dictionary of Current English, 8th
Edition, ed. Della Thompson (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1992), 1017.
vii
Uffe Juul Jensen, “Cultural Heritage, Liberal
Education and Human Flourishing: in Avarami, Mason
and de la Torre, Values and Heritage Conservation, 38.
Other authors who have referred to the invented nature
of heritage include Jean Friesen, “Introduction:
Heritage Futures”, 193; David Lowenthal, “Stewarding
the Past in a Perplexing Present,” in Erica Avrami,
Randall Mason and Marta de la Torre, Values and
Heritage Conservation (Los Angeles, The Getty
Conservation Institute, 2000), 22; Susan Pearce, “The
Making of Cultural Heritage” in Avrami, Mason and de
la Torre, Values and Heritage Conservation, 62-63.
xv
viii
xvii
vi
Silvio Mendes Zanchetti and Jukka Jokilehto,
“Values and Urban Conservation Planning: Some
Reflections on Principles and Definitions,” Journal of
Architectural Conservation No 1 (March 1997), 37;
Thomas King, Patricia Parker Hickman and Gary Berg,
Anthropology in Historic Preservation: Caring for
Culture’s Clutter (New York: Academic Press, 1977),
13.
ix
Charles Hosmer Jr., Presence of the Past: A History
of the Preservation Movement in the United States
Randall Mason, “Assessing Values in Conservation
Planning: Methodological Issues and Choices” in Marta
de la Torre, ed. Assess the Values of Cultural Heritage
(Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 2002);
Marja-Leena Ikkala, “Should Sausage Be Protected?”
International Council on Monuments and Sites Website
(viewed at
http://www.international.icomos.org/20th_heritage/ikkal
a.htm April 23, 2005)
xvi
Summerson, Sir John. (1949) Heavenly Mansions,
221.
“Convention Concerning the Protection of World
Cultural and Natural Heritage: Adopted by the General
Conference at its seventeenth session Paris, 16
November, 1972,” United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization Website (viewed at
http://whc.unesco.org/archive/convention-en.pdf, April
23, 2005).
xviii
William Thompson, Coordinator, “Winnipeg‟s
Historic Warehouse Area: Its revitalisation through
conservation,” (Winnipeg, 1976), vi; Marc Denhez,
7
Heritage Fights Back (Winnipeg: Fitzhenry &
Whiteside, 1978), 38-40.
xix
Harold Kalman, The Evaluation of Historic Buildings
(Ottawa: Parks Canada, 1979)
xx
Ibid, 6.
xxi
Ibid, 29.
xxii
The Australia ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation
of Places of Cultural Significance, (Australia ICOMOS,
1981) as in Judy Oberlander, Harold Kalman and Robert
Lemon, Principles of Heritage Conservation (Victoria:
Province of British Columbia, 1989), 32-34. The Burra
Charter was revised again in 1999 but for the terms of
this paper any references to The Burra Charter will be
regards to the 1981 version unless noted.
Conference on Historical Resources: Historic Sites and
Sustainable Development” (1990), Canadian Parks
Service Interim Policy on Cultural Resource
Management (March 1990); William Huot, “Heritage
Significance Discussion Paper” (British Columbia
Heritage Conservation Branch, January 1985), Victoria
Angel, Personal Communication (July, 2005).
xxviii
Parks Canada, “Cultural Resource Management
Policy,” (Ottawa, 1994), 3-12.
xxix
“Evaluation of Government Buildings—Draft”,
(November 10, 1976), CYR: File GR 165
xxx
Guidelines to the Burra Charter: Cultural
Significance, (Australia ICOMOS, 1984) as in
Oberlander, Kalman and Lemon, Principles of Heritage
Conservation, 35-38.
“Analysis of the Available Documentation on the
Methods Used to Evaluate Heritage Property”, (no date),
CYR: File GR 165. The suggested 1978 date for the
documents is based upon the inclusion in the survey of
Tom White‟s “Proposal to S.H.A.B.” dated March, 1978
but the lack of reference to Marc Denhez‟s Heritage
Fights Back, (1978) and Harold Kalman‟s The
Evaluation of Historic Buildings (1979), two of the
seminal works on this topic during the period.
xxiv
xxxi
xxiii
Ibid, 37.
xxv
“Statements of Significance: What Matters and
Why” The National Trust Website (accessed at
http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/environment/html/peo_c
om/papers/signif01.htm, April 24, 2005)
Ibid, 3.
xxxii
“Heritage Property Designation Criteria
(Structures)—Draft,” Saskatchewan Culture and Youth
(March, 1981), CYR: File 165.
xxxiii
Ibid, 1.
xxxiv
Ibid.
xxvi
Mason, “Assessing Values in Conservation Planning:
Methodological Issues and Choices,” 8-13; English
Heritage, “Sustaining the Historic Environment: New
Perspectives on the Future” Discussion Document
(1997): 1-12. These typologies include Bruno Frey‟s
criteria which includes monetary, option, existence,
bequest, prestige and educational; English Heritage‟s
criteria which suggests cultural, educational and
academic, economic, resource, recreational and
aesthetic; and Randal Mason‟s own criteria, which
includes historical, cultural/symbolic, social,
spiritual/religious and aesthetic under the heading
Sociocultural value and use(market) and nonuse
(nonmarket)—including existence, option and bequest
under the heading Economic Values; Nara Document on
Authenticity, UNESCO, 1994 (accessed at
http://whc.unesco.org/archive/nara94.htm October 29,
2005).
xxvii
The Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office
began using statements of significance in 1982 and
Parks Canada researched and incorporated values
concepts in its cultural resource management policies
during the decade. The Government of British
Columbia also researched and adopted elements of the
cultural significance approach during the period.
Christina Cameron, “Discussion Paper for the Canadian
xxxv
Mark Rasmussen, “The Initiation of a Heritage
Resource Systems Plan for Saskatchewan: Evaluative
Frameworks--Draft” Saskatchewan Culture and
Recreation (August 1983), CYR GR 523(c) : Master
Plan
xxxvi
“Guide to Preparing a Nomination,” Saskatchewan
Culture, Youth and Recreation website(accessed at
http://www.cyr.gov.sk.ca/assets/doc/PHP%20Designatio
n%20Documents/200405%20Guide%20to%20Preparing%20a%20PHP%20No
mination%20(Sep%202004).doc on November 13,
2005)
xxxvii
These ideas have been addressed by many,
including Mason, “Fixing Historic Preservation: A
Constructive Critique of “Significance”: 64-71;
Lowenthal, “Stewarding the Past in a Perplexing
Present”: 18-25; Howard Green, “The Social
Construction of Heritage Significance,” in Preservation
of What for Whom? A Critical Look at Historical
Significance (Ithasca, New York: The National Council
for Preservation Education, 1998) 89; Erica Avrami,
“Values and Heritage Conservation.” Getty
Conservation Institute Newsletter 15.2 (Summer 2000)
8
(viewed at
http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications/newslett
ers15_2/news2.html, April 5, 2005).
xxxviii
Mason, “Fixing Historic Preservation,” 68-69.
xxxix
Kate Clark, Preserving What Matters: Value-Led
Planning for Cultural Heritage Sites” GCI Newsletter
16.3 (Fall 2001), Getty Institute Website (accessed at
http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publicatons/newslett
ers/16_3/feature.html viewed April 5, 2005).
xl
The comment was made by an unnamed municipal
official from the Village of Alsask to Michael Thome,
Project Officer, Saskatchewan Department of Culture,
Youth and Recreation, November 9, 2005.
xli
Alan Gordon, “Heritage and Authenticity: The Case
of Ontario‟s Sainte-Marie-amoung-the-Hurons,” The
Canadian Historical Review 85 (September 2004), 508.
Avrami Erica, Randall Mason and Marta de la Torre.
Values and Heritage Conservation. Los
Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute,
2000: 18-25.
Binney, Marcus, “Oppression to Obsession,” in
David Lowenthal and Marcus Binney, ed.
Our Past Before Us: Why Do We Save It?
London: Temple Smith, 1981: 203-212.
Bluestone, Daniel, “Challenges for Heritage
Conservation and the Role of Research on
Values” in Erica Avrami, Randall Mason
and Marta de la Torre. Values and Heritage
Conservation. Los Angeles: The Getty
Conservation Institute, 2000: 65-67.
Carr, Edward Hallett. What is History? New York:
Vintage Books, 1961.
xlii
Tamara Hareven and Randolph Langenbach, “Living
Places, Work Places and Historical Identity,” in David
Lowenthal and Marcus Birney, ed. Our Past Before us:
Why do We Save It? (London: Temple Smith, 1981),
122.
Bibliography
Published Materials
Alanen, Arnold and Robert Z. Melnick, ed.
Preserving Cultural Landscapes in America.
Baltimore: The John Hopkins University
Press, 2000.
Applebaum, Louis and Jacques Hebert. Report of the
Federal Cultural Policy Review Committee.
Ottawa: Government of Canada,
Department of Communications, 1982.
Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities,
Revised Edition. New York: Verso, 1995.
Ashworth, G.J. and J.E. Tunbridge. The TouristHistoric City. New York: Pergamon, 2000.
Avrami, Erica, “Values and Heritage Conservation”
GCI Newsletter 15.2 (Summer 2000), Getty
Institute Website (accessed at
http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publicato
ns/newsletters/15_2/news2.html viewed
April 5, 2005).
Clark, Kate, “Preserving What Matters: Value-Led
Planning for Cultural Heritage Sites” GCI
Newsletter 16.3 (Fall 2001), Getty Institute
Website (accessed at
http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publicato
ns/newsletters/16_3/feature.html viewed
April 5, 2005).
Coopersmith, Penina with Richard C. Hall. Heritage
By Design. Ottawa: Government of
Canada, Ministry of State Urban Affairs,
1977.
Denhez, Marc. Heritage Fights Back. Winnipeg:
Fitzhenry and Whiteside, 1978.
Fowler, Peter. The Past in Contemporary Society
Then, Now. New York: Routledge, 1992.
Fram, Mark. Well Preserved, Third Revised Edition.
Erin, Ontario: The Boston Mills Press,
2003.
Friesen, Jean. “Introduction: Heritage Futures”
Prairie Forum, Vol 15, No 2 (Fall 1990):
193-196.
Frood, Peter, “The Historic Places Initiative: A
National Framework to Conserve Canada‟s
Built Heritage” Plan (Summer, 2003): 2932.
9
Gordon, Alan, “Heritage and Authenticity: The Case
of Ontario‟s Sainte-Marie-amoung-theHurons,” The Canadian Historical Review
85 (September 2004): 507-531.
Government of Canada. Report of the Royal
Commission on the National Development in
the Arts, Letters and Sciences, 1949-1951.
Ottawa: Kings Printer, 1951.
Green, Howard. “The Social Construction of
Heritage Significance,” in Preservation of
What for Whom? A Critical Look at
Historical Significance. Ithasca, New York:
The National Council for Preservation
Education, 1998: 85-94.
Hosmer, Charles B. Presence of the Past: A History
of the Preservation Movement in the United
States Before Williamsburg. New York:
G.P. Putnam‟s Sons, 1965.
Hareven, Tamara K. and Randolph Langenbach,
“Living Places, Work Places and Historical
Identity,” in David Lowenthal and Marcus
Binney, ed. Our Past Before Us: Why Do
We Save It? London: Temple Smith, 1981:
109-123.
Hunter, Michael, “The Preconditions of Preservation:
A Historical Perspective” in David
Lowenthal and Marcus Binney, Our Past
Before Us: Why Do We Save It? (London:
Temple Smith, 1981): 22-32.
Ikkala, Marja-Leena, “Should Sausage Be
Protected?” International Council on
Monuments and Sites Website (viewed at
http://www.international.icomos.org/20th_h
eritage/ikkala.htm April 23, 2005)
Jensen, Uffe Juul, “Cultural Heritage, Liberal
Education, and Human Flourishing” in Erica
Avrami, Randall Mason and Marta de la
Torre. Values and Heritage Conservation.
Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation
Institute, 2000: 138-43.
Kalman, Harold. The Evaluation of Historic
Buildings. Ottawa: Parks Canada, 1979.
Kammen, Michael. Mystic Chords of Memory. New
York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1991.
Kammen, Michael. In the Past Lane: Historical
Perspectives on American Culture. New
York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Kaufman, Ned, “Historic Places and the Diversity
Deficit in Heritage Conservation” CRM:
The Journal of Heritage Stewardship, Vol 1,
No. 2 (Summer 2004): 68-85.
Kerr, Don. “In Defence of the Past: A History of
Saskatchewan Heritage Preservation, 19221983” Prairie Forum, Vol 15, No 2 (Fall
1990): 277-300.
King, Thomas, Patricia Parker Hickman and Gary
Berg. Anthropology in Historic
Preservation: Caring for Culture’s Clutter.
New York: Academic Press, 1977.
Lowenthal, David, “Dilemmas of Preservation,” in
David Lowenthal and Marcus Binney, ed.
Our Past Before Us: Why Do We Save It?
London: Temple Smith, 1981: 213-236.
Lowenthal, David. Possessed by the Past: The
Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History.
Toronto: The Free Press, 1996.
Lowenthal, David, “Stewarding the Past in a
Perplexing Present” in Erica Avrami,
Randall Mason and Marta de la Torre.
Values and Heritage Conservation. Los
Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute,
2000: 18-25.
Mason, Randall, “Assessing Values in Conservation
Planning: Methodological Issues and
Choices” in Marta de la Torre, ed.
Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage.
Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation
Institute, 2002: 5-30.
Mason, Randall, “Fixing Historic Preservation: A
Constructive Technique of „Significance‟”
Places Vol 16, No.1 (2003): 65-71.
Neufeld, Keith. Prairie Provinces Caucus Final
Report. Regina: Parks Canada & Canadian
Plains Research Centre, 1985.
Oberlander, Judy, Harold Kalman and Robert Lemon.
Principles of Heritage Conservation.
Victoria: Government of British Columbia,
10
Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation
and Culture, 1989.
Pearce, Susan M, “The Making of Cultural Heritage”
in Erica Avrami, Randall Mason and Marta
de la Torre. Values and Heritage
Conservation. Los Angeles: The Getty
Conservation Institute, 2000: 59-64.
Powell, Ken, “Leeds: „Obsolescence‟ and the
Destruction of the Inner City,” in David
Lowenthal and Marcus Binney, ed. Our Past
Before Us: Why Do We Save It? London:
Temple Smith, 1981: 143-157.
Sandell, Richard, ed. Museums, Society, Inequity.
New York: Routledge, 2002.
Summerson, Sir John. Heavenly Mansions. London:
The Crescent Press, 1949.
Taylor, C.J. Negotiating the Past: The Making of
Canada’s National Historic Parks and Sites.
Kingston: McGill-Queen‟s University
Press, 1990.
Thompson, William, Coordinator. “Winnipeg‟s
Historic Warehouse District Area: its
revitalization through conservation.” A
report prepared for Heritage Canada and the
Manitoba Historical Society, Winnipeg,
1976.
Bennett, Gordon, “Creating Heritage Conservation
Policies and Programs Based Upon Heritage
Values” as part of “Heritage Conservation:
What are our Values” Workshop, Simon
Fraser University, Vancouver, February 18,
2005.
Kerr, Alastair, “Why is it Important to Establish
Heritage Values?” as part of “Heritage
Conservation: What are our Values”
Workshop, Simon Fraser University,
Vancouver, February 18, 2005.
Luxton, Donald, “Determining Heritage Values in a
British Columbia Context: Are we half way
to Panama?” Lecture at Simon Fraser
University, Vancouver, February 17, 2005.
Luxton, Donald, “Hitting the Target: The Calibration
of Values at the Community Level” as part
of “Heritage Conservation: What are our
Values” Workshop, Simon Fraser
University, Vancouver, February 18, 2005.
Mason, Randall, “Determining Heritage Values:
Connecting Theory and Practice” as part of
“Heritage Conservation: What are our
Values” Workshop, Simon Fraser
University, Vancouver, February 18, 2005.
Interviews and Personal Papers
Verdery, Katherine and Caroline Humphrey, ed.
Property in Question: Value
Transformation in the Global Economy.
New York: Berg, 2004.
Angel, Victoria, personal communication by
telephone and e-mail, (July-October, 2005).
Kanigan-Fairen, Joan, interview (July 21, 2005).
Weinberg, Nathan. Preservation in American Towns
and Cities. Boulder: Westview Press, 1979.
Zancheti, Silvio Mendes and Jukka Jokilehto,
“Values and Urban Conservation Planning:
Some Reflections on Principles and
Definitions” Journal of Architectural
Conservation No1 (March 1997): 37-51.
“SAHS Response to Draft Guidelines for the
Provincial Heritage Property Designation
Program” unpublished document dated July
28, 2001in authors possession.
Thome, Michael, personal communication,
November 9, 2005.
Primary Documents
Lectures and Presentations
Cameron, Christina. “Discussion Paper for the
Canadian Conference on Historical
11
Resources: Historic Sites and Sustainable
Development”. Parks Canada (1990).
“Canadian Parks Service Interim Policy on Cultural
Resource Management”, Parks Canada
(March 1990).
Canadian Register of Historic Places (accessed at
www.historicplaces.ca on July 22, 2005).
“Charter for the Preservation of Quebec‟s Heritage:
The Deschambault Declaration”, ICOMOS
French Speaking Committee, 1982 (as
viewed at
http://www.icomos.org/docs/deschambault.h
tml.en, April 10, 2005).
“Convention Concerning the Protection of World
Cultural and Natural Heritage: Adopted by
the General Conference at its seventeenth
session Paris, 16 November, 1972,” United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization Website (viewed at
http://whc.unesco.org/archive/conventionen.pdf, April 23, 2005).
English Heritage, “Sustaining the Historic
Environment: New Perspectives on the
Future” Discussion Document (1997).
Heritage Forum 2002: Our Commitment to the
Future, Saskatchewan Architectural
Heritage Society, (2002).
“The Heritage Property Act,” Statutes of
Saskatchewan, 1979-80, Chapter H-2.2, s.
2.i (1980).
“Historic Sites and Monuments of Canada,”
Department of Justice website (accessed at
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/H-4/ on July 23,
2005).
Huot, William, “Heritage Significance Discussion
Paper,” British Columbia Heritage
Conservation Branch (January 1985).
Nara Document on Authenticity, UNESCO, 1994
(accessed at
http://whc.unesco.org/archive/nara94.htm
October 29, 2005).
Parks Canada, “Cultural Resource Management
Policy” (1994).
Parks Canada, “Guide to the Preparation of
Commemorative Integrity Statements”
(2002).
Parks Canada, The Canadian Register of Historic
Places. Canada‟s Historic Places Website
(accessed at
http://www.historicplaces.ca/acchom_e.aspx on April 24, 2005).
Parks Canada Agency Website (various pages).
Accessed at http://www.pc.gc.ca, July 10,
2005.
“Preamble”, The Venice Charter. International
Committee for the Conservation of
Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), 1964 (as
viewed at
http://www.icomos.org/venice_charter.html,
April 10, 2005).
Saskatchewan Culture, Youth and Recreation:
Files
GR 158:
GR 165:
GR 166:
GR 523:
“Heritage Conservation”
“Designation Criteria”
“Heritage Property Act”
“Master Plan”
Directory of Provincial and Municipal
Heritage Property in Saskatchewan
(accessed at
http://www.cyr.gov.sk.ca/heritage_propertie
s_search.html).
“Government of Saskatchewan Guidelines
for the Provincial Heritage Property
Designation Program” unpublished
document dated November 21, 2000.
“Guide to Preparing a Nomination,”
Saskatchewan Culture, Youth and
Recreation website(accessed at
http://www.cyr.gov.sk.ca/assets/doc/PHP%2
0Designation%20Documents/200405%20Guide%20to%20Preparing%20a%20
PHP%20Nomination%20(Sep%202004).doc
on November 13, 2005).
Frank Korvemaker, “A Thematic
Framework for Managing Saskatchewan‟s
Historic sites and Structures,” Saskatchewan
Municipal Affairs, Culture and Housing
(March, 1999).
12
“Provincial Heritage Property Designation
Program” unpublished document dated May
13, 2002.
Rasmussen, Mark. “The Initiation of a
Heritage Resource Systems Plan for
Saskatchewan: Evaluative Framework”
unpublished draft dated August, 1983.
at
http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/environment
/html/peo_com/papers/signif01.htm, April
24, 2005).
“World Heritage Convention,” United Nations
Educational, Cultural and Scientific
Organization website (accessed at
http://whc.unesco.org/ on July 22, 2005).
“Statements of Significance: What Matters and
Why” The National Trust Website (accessed
13