1

Report

Research project: Heritage in Use (Erfgoed in Gebruik)

Inventory and analysis on public participation in the heritage conservation field

Organization: Cultural Heritage Agency of The Netherlands

(RCE - Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed)

Period: May 2015 - July 2015

Author: Maria Lucia Buccolo

2

Contents

Introduction 3

Cases study 4

n.1 - Collectie Escamp project 5

n.2 - De Rivierjutters community 11

n.3 - Nagele landscape project 17

n.4 - Tramremise de Hallen project 23

n.5 - Lex Horn‟s sgraffito artwork 29

n.6 - Museumstraat Amsterdam event 34

n.7 - SOS! Save Outdoor Sculpture program 39

n.8 - Rescue Public Murals initiative 45

n.9 - Preservation of Outdoor Painted Sculpture in Québec 51

n.10 - Heritage Lottery Fund projects 58

Analysis - global overview 70

Conclusions 77

Appendix - interviews 80

Interview Collectie Escamp project 80

Interview De Rivierjutters community 88

Interview Ruimte voor de Rivier program 93

Interview Nagel landscape project 101

Interview Rescue Public Murals initiative 107

Interview Preservation of Outdoor Painted Sculpture in Québec 110

Acknowledgements 117

References 118

3

Introduction

The article n.2 of Faro convention in 2005 on “the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society” defines

cultural heritage as: “a group of resources inherited from the past which people identify,

independently of ownership, as a reflection and expression of their constantly evolving values,

beliefs, knowledge and traditions, including all aspects of the environment resulting from the

interaction between people and places through time”. (Faro: 2005, 2)

Cultural heritage, in fact, is a common good that belongs to no one but that everybody benefits

from, and it is held in trust by cultural heritage institutions in order to preserve its significance and

transmit it to the future generations. (Sani: 2015, 3)

Faro convention‟s declaration played an important role in the process of “cultural heritage

democratization” because it pointed out, as first objective of the Council of Europe meeting, the

need to put people and human values at the centre of the discussion, emphasizing the significance

of cultural heritage as an instrument to improve the society‟s quality of life and, as a direct

consequence, the urgency to promote the public participation in the process of cultural heritage

management and care.

Heritage has been, is, and will be made by people who are members of society. The same experts

that take care of heritage are part of the society and share with the community the same social and

cultural motivations, expectations, and needs. It is fundamental, therefore, that the sense of

belonging and awareness toward cultural heritage and a meaningful involvement in its “use and

care” comes back to the society through a cultural institution‟s democratization process.

In this regard it is interesting to come back to the Faro convention and cite, once again from the

article n.2, the definition of heritage community, to understand that heritage benefits in particular

from a portion of the society that has been, for history, location or cultural identification, affected by

it. “ A Heritage Community consists of people who value specific aspects of cultural heritage which

they wish, within the framework of public action, to sustain and transmit to future generations”.

(Faro: 2005, 2)

This means that in reality people are already engaged with heritage because of part of their history,

roots, and identity. They are already taking care of it, preserving its memory that is supported by

their personal stories. The contribution that people can give in the heritage conservation process is

enormous and rich with the human spirit that is the base of the cultural heritage idea and the

reason why we want to maintain and preserve this legacy for the future. The Faro convention‟s

declaration highlights, as well, the importance to take into consideration “the value attached by

each heritage community to the cultural heritage with which it identifies”. (Faro: 2005, 4, art.12)

What comes from the 2005 convention is the awareness of the cultural and civil institutions that

people have the right to participate in cultural life as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights (1948). What is more interesting and positive for the future social development is that from

the 1948 to the 2005 this right of participation has become meaningful. People‟s role in

participating in cultural heritage management and conservation has to be active, above all in

decision making and responsibilities like maintenance and initiatives to involve and attract people‟s

interest. The statement of the Faro convention is the need to develop people awareness towards

cultural heritage. This awareness will be the strongest community‟s motivation to the cultural

heritage involvement. It will empower the community identity and will encourage people to take

care of heritage. It will open access to cultural heritage through meaningful and democratic public

participation.

4

Heritage care is not just the process of maintenance and conservation of a common good but also

a “sentimental education” for the society to connect with their own roots and surroundings.

Preserving a common good, as underlined by the article n.1 of Faro convention, enhances the

community and surroundings‟ quality of life. The article aims to: “emphasize that conservation of

cultural heritage and its sustainable use have human development and quality of life as their goal”

(Faro: 2005, 2). That‟s why is important to involve people in the heritage conservation field.

Citizens and local communities take care of heritage if they can give it a value and can get a sense

of awareness, belonging, and appreciation. They give a value if they know about it, a sort of

engaging discovery. They know about it if they are involved in programs, projects, activities, and

decision making that can stimulate their interests and foster their civic and cultural spirit.

Already in 1975 the role of citizens in the participation to the heritage conservation was an inspiring

point of analysis and development. Quoting Reint Laan jr. in his report about the responsibilities of

the local authorities and citizens participation of the European Architectural Heritage Year 1975: “It

is meetings of people that create an urban atmosphere and a vital society, and the key to the

conservation of urban culture ultimately lies with the inhabitant, that is, the citizen, the person who

lives in the community and is the only one capable of defending that culture, provided he has been

made aware of his interests”. (Laar jr.: 1975, 9)

If in 1975 there was just an input and “a wish” to reinforce the public awareness towards cultural

heritage and let people participate, in 2005 there has been the affirmation of the public participation

as a human right to take part in the community‟s cultural life. The human values are at the centre

and stable in the cultural heritage analysis. It has been established to promote cultural heritage

and public participation in order to improve the society‟s quality of life and living environment.

The recent Namur declaration of April 2015 about the “Cultural Heritage in the 21st century for

living better together” re-affirms all the principles stated in the Faro convention of 2005 and

introduces a need to develop strategies for re-defining the role of cultural heritage in Europe in

order to improve people‟s quality of life, living surroundings and the right of the community to

participate actively and meaningfully in the cultural heritage life. (Namur Declaration: 2015)

The “Heritage in Use” project (Erfgoed in Gebruik) - one of the 10 projects within a recently started

research program at RCE “Heritage of the Modern Age” (Erfgoed van de Moderne Tijd) - focuses

on researching and analyzing methods and mechanisms of public participation in heritage

conservation. Citizens are users and producers of heritage, they constantly determine its

evaluation. Involving citizens in the heritage management and conservation adds an extra value to

the heritage significance, enhances awareness on the importance, use and care of what belongs to

us, and would establish a co-created value between citizens and heritage professionals.

The next chapter introduces and explores 10 cases study over the public participation to the

heritage care across the Netherlands, North America and United Kingdom.

Cases study

Methodology

The cases studied were projects, programs and initiatives regarding the public engagement to the

heritage care. Those cases have been developed in The Netherlands, United States of America,

Canada and United Kingdom.

5

All the cases have been analyzed following the same criteria and parameters. Each project has

been contextualized with a brief preamble that describes the organizations involved, and the

cultural and historical background.

The research of five of the cases has been supported and enriched by interviews of the different

stakeholders involved in the process.

n. 1 - Collectie Escamp project

Figure1 - "Muurrelief Blokkendoos", Christa van Santen, 1965

Abstract

The Collectie Escamp project is a plan started in 2014 to promote and realize the restoration of

some of the pieces of the outdoor artworks in the Escamp district of The Hague. The project aims,

with the revitalization and restoration of the artworks, to revitalize as well the cultural and social life

of the district.

Indicators

Location Zuid57 Zuidlarenstraat 57, The Hague - The Netherlands

Dates 2014 - present (ongoing)

Status Project - Collectie Escamp

Aim Promote restoration of the outdoor artworks in Escamp district

Coordinator Collectie Escamp team

Parties involved Collectie Escamp team, Dakota theatre, VESTIA org., Stroom org., Escamp district municipality, volunteers, local residents, etc.

Area Escamp district, The Hague, NL

Temporary/ permanent

Permanent

6

Preamble

About Platform57 organization

This foundation was organized around the artist-photographer Johan Nieuwenhuize. This

organization was a platform of modern art that made several projects for Escamp district of The

Hague. Its approach was to work together with artists to improve and create new artworks for the

neighborhood. In 2013, Jennefer Verbeek, the current coordinator of Collectie Escamp team, was

the business manager. In 2014 the organization took the responsibility to organize the project for

the restoration of the outdoor artworks in Escamp district. Now the organization doesn‟t exist

anymore, the same role has been taken by the Collectie Escamp team.

About Stroom Den Haag

It is an independent organization founded in 1990. This organization is an art centre with a wide

range of activities. Its programs entail visual arts, architecture, design, and urban planning that

focus on urban environment. The organization collaborates with artists and it is open to everyone

with ideas and initiatives to improve the life‟s quality of the city. Collectie Escamp team

collaborates with Stroom organization as well, and Stroom supports Collectie Escamp project

through expert advice, and taking care for the management and maintenance of the restored

artworks.

Background

The area that concerns Collectie Escamp project is the district of Escamp in The Hague. Most of

the area was built after the WW2. During the 50s and 60s in The Netherlands there was the

regulation policy of the 1%. According to the regulation for each building built in that period the 1%

of the budget had to be addressed to artworks‟ design, linked to the building concept. This

regulation aimed to improve the artistic quality of the neighborhoods, support artists, and foster art

and design. Most of the artworks were sculptures and reliefs on the outside of buildings. The

Hague got the 2% of that regulation, that means that for each building built in that period the city

council applied an extra 1% of the budget to be addressed to artworks creation. That‟s why

Escamp district has such a rich collection of public artworks, above all outdoors. The artworks in

Escamp comprise the 1/3 of all the outdoor artworks in The Hague.

Those artworks after more than 50 years need maintenance and in most of the cases work of

conservation.

Around 2010 the director of the Dakota theatre in the Escamp district of The Hague was Paul

Cornelissen. He had a deep interest in the artworks of the neighborhood, and he was really

motivated in taking care of them with a work of conservation. So during the period between 2010-

2013 he started, with a personal initiative, to organize the restoration of some artworks in the

district, and raise awareness towards this local heritage.

In 2014, Escamp district municipality, fostered by the initiative of Paul Cornelissen, recognized the

artistic, cultural, and social importance of Escamp artworks for the city but in particular for the

district, and wanted to develop a plan to restore and revitalize more artworks offering money for

that. The municipality asked first to Paul Cornelissen to organize the project, but he wasn‟t

anymore the director of Dakota theatre and had a new job in the south Holland; so it asked

Platform57 organization to do it.

In 2014 Platform57 came up with Collectie Escamp project.

Project

The project, called Collectie Escamp, started in 2014, aimed to restore public and outdoor artworks

in the Escamp district. Moreover the project focused on the social purpose to revitalize the

7

neighborhood bringing back the local heritage‟s beauty and creating activities and initiatives in

order to involve local residents and raise their awareness toward the Collectie Escamp. The project

is still ongoing and developing.

The Collectie Escamp team had and has still today a multi-perspective stakeholders range. It

consists of a versatile collaborations among artists, heritage and museums professionals, Escamp

district municipality, organizations, Platform57, and Escamp‟s residents.

Platform57 organization decided to involve Escamp‟s residents in the decision making over the

artworks‟ restoration. In particular they invited the local residents to choose the artworks to be

restored. They put an advertisement in a local newspaper and people reacted back. Platform57,

moreover, tried to keep in touch with those people interested in the project with the aim to develop

a plan together for Collectie Escamp project. This initiative, of Platform57, got local residents‟

attention and interest to the project. They became part of the team Collectie Escamp. The public

involvement has been since the principle a strong point of the project. Indeed the organization

asked them for opinions and choices about the artworks to restore but also ideas and initiatives to

the project‟s development, and of course for their practical support.

Collectie Escamp team started with a group of 6-7 volunteers from the Escamp‟s community.

Some people were involved in the process full-time some other occasionally. All the stakeholders

involved brought experience, competencies and practical support. The project, hosted by the

Dakota theatre and the extra support of its volunteers, had a good way of starting.

Escamp collection.

The collection consists of sculptures and buildings‟ artworks that were created during the fifties till

seventies. The artworks enrich the public spaces of Escamp district and express the creative spirit

of the time. The “street collection” needed, after 50 years, restoration and also, in some cases, a

better relocation in the district in order to highlight their significance and enhance their historical

and artistic importance for the neighborhood.

Project‟s current situation.

Platform57 doesn‟t exist anymore and the project Collectie Escamp is carried out by Collectie

Escamp team. The team‟s role is not in the technical field of conservation, Escamp district‟s

municipality has the responsibility to engage professionals to do that. The team is responsible for

checking the artworks‟ condition and when needed to request promote their restoration. Moreover

the team‟s role as also a social purpose in order to revitalize the cultural life of the district through

activities and initiatives linked to Collectie Escamp, and raise the community‟s awareness towards

this unique treasure.

In total 9 artworks have been restored in Escamp district. 6 artworks have been restored thanks to

Paul Cornelissen‟s initiative and when he was the director of the Dakota theatre (2010-2013). The

restoration of the other 3 artworks has been promoted by the Collectie Escamp project (since

2014).

Project‟s results.

- Publication:

“Collectie Escamp - een introductie”, December 2014

8

(This publication concerns the project‟s idea, concept, objectives, and process. There is also

an overview about Escamp district historical and artistic background, articles, opinions, and

interviews of professionals, artists and local residents)

- Artworks restored:

Jan Snoeck, “Buizen plastiek”, gelaaks staal(1975); replica and relocated

Rudi Rooijakkers, “Sculptuur van gebauchardeerd beton”(1957); restored and relocated

Willem Hussem, “Wandschildering”(1957); restored, video

Jeroen Voskuyl, “Mozaiek”(1957); restored

Lotti van der Gaag, “Wandrelief in beton”(1963); restored

Paul Kromjong, “Betonrelief met moziekintarsia”(1959); partly restored

Christa van Santen, “Muurrelief Blokkendoos”(1965); restored with artist‟s support

- Bike-ride tour event, and the cycle tour and brochure project:

(This initiative has been organized in order to involve local residents in the cultural discovery

of the artworks‟ district, to know more about the work done throughout the project, and get

further involved in it)

Project‟s development.

Collectie Escamp team wants to develop a special project for each neighborhood and get the

residents more involved. The plan is to underline the artworks in each neighborhood, enriched by

anecdotes from the residents, and create special activities and events around that. They want to

develop only 2 neighborhoods/projects per year in order to focus and have a very accurate result.

They really want to keep being a team, collaborate together possibly with more people involved,

and trying to build new cooperation with big organizations. They would like to be a reference for

other associations of districts.

Funding (and resources)

In 2014 the funding came from Escamp district‟s municipality. This year, 2015, there is still a little

amount of money left from the municipally but the main work is done for free. Collectie Escamp

team is trying to get funding for the next year.

The organization has also professional support and facilities‟ support from VESTIA organization,

Dakota theatre, Stroom, and the hard work of all volunteers involved in the project.

Approach

This project has a strong bottom-up approach. Indeed the initiative to re-discover and take care of

the public artworks in Escamp district started from the interest and motivation of a member of the

same local community, the former director of Dakota theatre Paul Cornelissen. He made the

Escamp district‟s municipality aware over the importance and value of the artworks in the district.

Moreover he personally raised money to start the artworks‟ restoration.

Only after that, a top-down initiative from the municipality, gave support to start a project and a

program of restoration of the Escamp‟s artworks.

The role of Collectie Escamp team as organization has been a sort of mediator between experts

and local community. They took the responsibility to organize a project around the Escamp‟s

9

collection but their approach was to involve since the principle local residents and people

interested in the project. They engaged them through an advertisement in a local newspaper, they

keep in contact through meetings, and since then they collaborated in the project in a decisional,

creative and practical way.

So once again the approach of the project to the public involvement comes from the bottom and

with a positive and democratic characteristic to “built” the project together, organization and

community.

Motivations:

- Importance of local residents‟ involvement in the project

- Raise awareness to the value of the artworks in the district

- Give to the residents the opportunity to take responsibilities regarding their own heritage

- Foster enthusiasm around the project, get support, and establish collaborations

- Take care of the local heritage

- Revitalize and improve the district and its social and cultural life

Objectives:

- Actively involve the district‟s residents in the Collectie Escamp project; develop educational

programs and initiatives for the neighborhood (e.g. cycle tour)

- Restore and when necessary relocate the artworks of Escamp district

- Engage contemporary artists in producing new “street artworks” for the district; as a link

between the past and the present

- E.g. artwork of the Scottish artist Toby Paterson, “Resetting” (2013)

- “Spread” the project‟s concept to the other neighborhoods in The Hague

Phases of the project‟s process (including public involvement):

1. Make the residents an active part of the project‟s process (decisions, opinions, ideas, tasks)

2. Enhance interest and awareness over the project‟s content - the collection (information)

3. Create attractive instruments of public participation (meetings, events, openings,

publications, activities, cycle tour)

4. Foster collaborations with experts and organizations

5. Realize the project‟s objectives - heritage management and conservation, revitalization of

Escamp district

Considerations

Analyzing the answers of the interview that I carried out with the coordinator and volunteers of the

Collectie Escamp team the most interesting and strong point of reflection was the importance that

they gave to the public involvement since principle into the project‟s process.

From the results, indeed, it is possible to outline the path that the process of public involvement

has followed. They have been all agree in the following:

AWARENESS – ENGAGEMENT – RESPONSIBILITY

Be conscious part of the community – AWARENESS

Be active part of the community - ENGAGEMENT

Be productive part of the community – RESPONSABILITY

10

The first step to involve people in the process has been to raise awareness over the potential and

value of the project, in an artistic but also social way. They tried to raise awareness – with good

results – through sharing information and organizing meetings.

The second step has been to involve directly local residents interested in the process. In this way

the project had a more open vision, a strong collaboration, and above all people since principle

brought their ideas, expertise, support, and experience. This changed immediately the approach of

the project addressing it to a social development connected to the artistic aim.

Once that it has been enhanced awareness and created the instruments for an active and

conscious participation it has been almost natural to foster enthusiasm and at the same time

responsibility in matter of heritage care.

This path shows an effective way to engage people and encourage them in discovering and taking

care of their own heritage. It is a powerful path to get people closer to something that belongs to

them but that they didn't have before the instruments to take care of.

Another interesting point of reflection is the role of volunteers in the project. They are essential as a

support for the project‟s process. It is interesting a consideration of one of the volunteers during the

interview that we had. He described his role of volunteer as a connector between the organization

and Escamp‟s community. He realized that, thanks to the Collectie Escamp team and the project,

he gained awareness and knowledge toward his local heritage that can “transfer” back to his local

community as a way to involve them.

The project even if is started in 2014, and with a small group, has already achieved good results in

matter of public involvement and enthusiasm, artworks restored, initiatives realized around the

Collectie Escamp project, and collaborations established.

Success factors

1. Enthusiasm and passion

This is the strongest factor of the project‟s success. The enthusiasm and passion of all the

members of Collectie Escamp team is simply amazing, and I experienced that through my

interview. They can really transmit the passion toward their district, the effort to take care of it, the

feeling of belonging and belief in the district‟s history, art, and people. Their motivation, awareness

and willingness to take care of their heritage it is really the engine of a good public participation

strategy.

2. Support

It has been fundamental for the project starting and its development the support of Dakota theatre,

and other organizations involved in the process.

3. Group

Collectie Escamp team is a solid and strong group, fostered by enthusiasm and belief. Its key of

success is in sharing opinions, ideas and decision making. In this way their position become solid

and positive to relate with the local authorities.

4. Cooperation

The collaboration between the Collectie Escamp team and Stroom organization is important to get

expertise, experience, and content regarding the conservation field into the project.

11

5. Volunteers

They are an important figure, a bridge between organization and local community. Thanks to the

project and collaborations they are also trained and closer to the conservation‟s field, gaining

professional skills

6. Development management

It is very important the strategy of development management that Collectie Escamp project has

adopted. In this way the project can acquire funding and resources but also new ideas and

initiative to its development.

More info (and references)

Platform57. Collectie Escamp - een introductie. The Hague: Platform57, 2014. Print

http://platform57.nl/2011/08/18/missie/

http://platform57.nl/publicatie-en-fietstocht-collectie-escamp/

http://platform57.nl/wandrelief-van-christa-van-santen/

http://platform57.nl/wandrelief-van-paul-kromjong/

http://platform57.nl/beeld-van-jan-snoeck/

http://www.zuid57.nl/

Interview Collectie Escamp project - appendix

n.2 - De Rivierjutters community

Figure 2 - RVR program map Figure 3 – Volunteers

12

Abstract

De Rivierjutters community is a group of volunteers, a network of Dutch people coming from the

rivers‟ areas that support the National program “Room for the River”. Their enthusiastic and

passionate work of observation and documentation over the rivers‟ areas is a precious resource for

the program‟s development and an innovative way of taking care of the natural local heritage.

Indicators

Location Griffioenlaan 2 3526 LA Utrecht – The Netherlands

Dates 2014 - 2016

Status Network, De Rivierjutters community

Aim Support through documentation‟s work “Room for the River” program

Coordinator Rijkswaterstaat communication department

Parties involved De Rivierjutters community, Rijkswaterstaat communication department

Area Rivers‟ area of The Netherlands

Temporary/ permanent Temporary

Preamble

About “Room for the River” program

The Netherlands has always to deal with water. Its management is fundamental for the safety of

the population and its heritage. The successful and international acknowledged Delta plan protects

the country from flooding and prevents the population from the risks of water disasters like in the

past. Today global warming has increased rainfall and the risk of flooding. The Dutch program

“Room for the River” is an “evolution” of the Delta plan, a new and “inter-territorial” solution for the

best and most efficient management of the Dutch rivers‟ water.

The program consists of the creation of more “space” for the rivers. The objectives are: deepening

or enlarging the river‟s beds, relocating the dikes positions in order to have more safe space where

the water can flood, create water storages, water channels, etc. Moreover the program aims to

improve the environmental quality of the rivers regions. There are more than 30 locations in the

Netherlands involved in the “Room for the River” program. The program is due for completion

approximately by the end of 2015.

This program will “restore” the Dutch landscape making it safe and preserving it for the future,

whilst improving its environmental quality. This is an example of National program for the natural

heritage‟s conservation and management in which all the people affected by this change will be

involved in the plan‟s realization. This experience produced a productive collaboration between

National government, local and regional authorities, and local residents. The community De

Rivierjutters (Rivercombers) is a direct consequence of the above mentioned collaborations. The

community is composed by local people that are involved in the “Room for the River” program, and

that support with their personal and voluntary help the program‟s realization. This is a wonderful

example of public participation in the natural heritage care and management.

13

Background

“Room for the River” (RVR) is a National program coordinated by the Rijkswaterstaat (RWS) and

consists in 34 projects all around the rivers' area of the Netherlands, in order to create more space

for the rivers' water flow (reasons of safety) and to improve the environment of the surrounding

areas.

The RWS communication department was initially completely in charge to inform people about the

program. Two inhabitants from Deventer and Nijmegen thought that the communication about the

program was not satisfying enough for the local residents of the rivers‟ area. In particular they

believed that in the process of communicating there was a lack of the residents‟ opinions about the

program. So they asked for an appointment with the communication department to explain their

reasons and expectations. They wanted to take part in the communication sphere of the program‟s

development, and tell their stories and considerations over the rivers‟ areas. They actually came up

with De Rivierjutters concept.

The RWS communication department that wanted actually to change its strategy of

communication, because they also thought that was just from only one point of view, accepted the

suggestions, and actually started a brainstorming to think with them a new strategy of

communication for the program. And then, they came up with De Rivierjutters idea.

De Rivierjutters is play on the word strandjutters (beachcombers). So the meaning is symbolic

because like the beachcombers find stuff on the beach, the rivercombers find stories around the

rivers.

The call for action to create De Rivierjutters community started with an initiative of the RWS

communication department. They put an advertisement on a local newspaper “Waterstand” and

almost 50 people reacted positively. Of those 50 people only 25 wanted to start the project of

Rivierjutters. On 6th February 2014 a meeting between the RWS communication department and

the volunteers willing the start the project. They explained them more about the RVR program and

they discuss together what to do to better communicate it to other people. From that moment De

Rivierjutters community started.

Community

De Rivierjutters are volunteers with different backgrounds, and coming from different rivers‟ areas

of the Netherlands. They are rivers‟ fun, local residents, local reporters and professionals that for

river areas' passion and for natural local heritage's love, they support the Dutch program “Room for

the River” with a deep and interesting work of documentation over the different rivers‟ areas

involved in the program. Their work of documentation supports the local and national governments

to keep updated the river areas' situation. Moreover they encourage the local communities to

enhance their awareness and interest toward the natural local heritage.

They enrich their reporting job with a wonderful images gallery that represents a precious work of

photographic documentation. They basically tell past and present stories about the rivers‟ areas in

a personal blog . All information, news, documentation are shared within the Rivierjutters

community so they can support each other. They represent an active and productive public

participation in the program‟s process; the information gathered by the Rivierjutters, indeed, are

extremely important for the development of the “Room for the River” plan. They are actually playing

the role of observers and ambassadors of the program‟s development and this is useful for the

communication department to optimize time and resources.

14

De Rivierjutters community is constituted by enthusiastic people that know really well their rivers‟

territories and can communicate in a profound and productive way the status of the program and

the environment, whereby enhancing public interest.

Right now the community is around 40 members and the rivers‟ areas where they are involved,

interested, and active are: Gelderland, Noord-Brabant, Overijsel, Utrecht, Zuid-Holland, Zeeland /

Zuid-Holland / Noord-Brabant, Stroomlijn programma. They are constantly in contact with the

representatives of the program for support, advises and communications. The community has

meeting 3 times a year in some location in the Netherlands, the same with the RVR

representatives, in order to follow the development both of the community and the program. The

community‟s work of documentation is independent and always open to new initiatives.

Their work of writing and collecting stories over rivers‟ areas, photographic documentation,

information about the program‟s development, and their conscious observation of the environment

and events is done through social media and followed by numerous local residents. They create an

important network useful for them in matter of intra-communication but also to inform and share

opinions, feeling and stories with other people living in the areas. This network is an interesting and

important strategy to develop a conscious participation and increase the public involvement. RWS

considers De Rivierjutters ambassadors of RVR program.

Funding (and resources)

The program is funded by the National government. Sometimes for some special quality

adjustments the program gets extra, even if small, funding from municipalities and regional

authorities of the areas involved.

The Rivierjutters are volunteers. The RWS pays only for some material or travel costs.

Approach

The Rivierjutters community is born because of an initiative of two private citizens that thought

there was a lack of public opinion in the program‟s communication.

The community, therefore, came up with a bottom-up approach.

It is really interesting the absolutely open-minded of the RVR communication department to follow

the citizens‟ initiative and change totally their strategy of communication giving them the maximum

support.

So De Rivierjutters community came up and is developed through a bottom-up approach and a

community‟s initiative and has built a solid horizontal cooperation with the organization. In this case

we cannot talk about a mixed approach to the public involvement in the program, but it concerns a

vital bottom-up way that is fostered and supported by the organization.

Organization‟s aim.

Put the stakeholders upfront, this is their new strategy of communication. The information, or

stories about the program have to be told by all the parties involved in order to have different

opinions and considerations. A multi-perspective overview makes the communication transparent

and democratic and the process visible. De Rivierjutters‟ work fits exactly the goal of the

organization.

15

Community‟s aim.

- Show other people what is happening in the rivers‟ areas through RVR program

- Give a local perspective to the projects‟ communication

- Raise awareness towards natural local heritage, its history, and its development

- Take care of the natural local heritage documenting and consciously observing its

development

- Do a good job in order to enhance the national and international interest toward the

Netherlands rivers‟ areas

- Create social and economic opportunities for the local communities

Community‟s documentation work.

Data gathered: history and background of the area, its current situation, its practical and ethical

issue linked with the territory and the local community. Information about the flora and fauna of the

local environment. Updating about the program‟s development. Considerations and opinions of

experts and community through blog-posts and reports. Photographic documentation of the area

during the different seasons. Cultural thoughts, references, cultural links and initiatives useful for

the community and the territory. Public involvement through social media.

Tools for communication and public involvement.

Website, blog, social media like facebook and twitter.

Results.

With the work of documentation and blog posting, the community is directly involved with opinions

in the program‟s process. Moreover they built a network and they are communicating through

social media that means to develop a fast and efficient way of public interaction and involvement.

Considerations

De Rivierjutters are the eyes and the ears of RVR program. They are the ambassadors of different

projects developed with the program. They constitute an interesting model of democratic public

participation in a project. In this way their opinion is present and taken into account by the

organization. Their work make visible and transparent the same program‟s work.

This strategy is an efficient mechanism of public involvement in the heritage care because of its

capability to stimulate further engagement, appreciation, awareness and more initiatives. The

model produced - the community network - could be a positive example of transparent,

responsible, and active community‟s engagement.

De Rivierjutters model could be adopted for other projects, for example in the cultural heritage

conservation field with positive results. This community brings in a project skills, experience, a local

point of view, a transparent point of view, ideas, and communication, that are fundamental points of

participation.

It is also important to underline the absolute support and open-minded of the organization toward

the original citizens‟ initiative. The organization‟s support stimulated the community‟s work and

enhanced their motivation on doing well.

16

I have read the blog of the Rivierjutter Emmie Nuijen, and had an interview with her, as case study

example in order to analyze better the community‟s way of work.

Emmie follows and documents the Tiel river area. She is an active Rivierjutter and writes about Tiel

area since February 2014. Her blog is rich of information over the water history of the area, the

current situation, and beautiful photographs of the river site. She has a nice way of writing her

posts, considerations about the local heritage, the work that has been done and has to be done

through the program. Emmie has always clever and interesting tips that can better explain the

natural area and its development. The blog is enriched by poems related to the ode of the river

culture that shows a deep love for this culture and its heritage. There are links with newspapers

that are useful to follow the practical developments of the area. Emmie‟s way of telling stories

linked to the past and the present of Tiel area is clear, deep and passionate. She has a nice way to

involve people and foster their interest toward the subject.

Quoting Emmie Nuijen in her blog: “Verhalen schrijven voor Ruimte voor de Rivier, is vaak de

opbrengst van een eigen leerproces. Het leren aan deze projecten, middels gesprekken met

mensen, ervaar ik als bijzonder waardevol!”

(“Writing stories for Room for the River is often an act of the own learning process. Learning of

these projects, through conversations with people, I experience as very valuable!”).

( http://teisterbander.tumblr.com/archive )

Through their stories, their documentation of the past, their songs and poems linked to the rivers

areas heritage; through their clever way to connect new initiatives, and their constant and sensitive

updating, De Rivierjutters offer an important lesson: a deep love for their natural local heritage.

They express this strong link and affection toward what represents their history, their roots, and

their background. This is the best motivation to take care of it and the best way to devolve this

message to the rest of the community and for the future generations.

I found this methodology of community involvement really effective. People are really doing

something for their own environment, they are taking care of the natural local heritage, they are

actually helping the authorities and the experts in the process of natural heritage conservation with

a serious and passionate work of documentation. In itself is already an instrument of heritage

preservation for the future. Their passion produces a circle of public involvement that works

effectively.

Success factors

1. Enthusiasm and motivation

This is the strongest success factor of De Rivierjutters community. They love their rivers‟ areas and

their express this feeling with their work of documentation. This creates enthusiasm and motivation

that involves the rest of the community and stimulates new initiatives.

2. Group and network

When a group have same motivations and passion becomes a strong group that works really well

together and it is really effective in what it is doing. The creation of a network is a smart and

fundamental instrument of success for public visibility, transparency, share opinions and promote

further public engagement.

3. Volunteers

17

De Rivierjutters community is a group of volunteers. Their work of observation, documentation and

communication is an effective instrument to get people interested towards RVR program, and

actually support the program as its ambassadors.

4. Support and collaboration

It has been fundamental the support and collaboration between the program‟s communication

department and De Rivierjutters. They are helping each other and the collaboration is mutual.

5. Organization‟s open-minded

Changing completely the communication strategy has been an important step to develop the

program in a more democratic, transparent, and involving way. The results of De Rivierjutters

community have demonstrated that the contribution given by the community‟s involvement in a

project, taking care of their heritage, is precious and enormous.

More info (and references)

http://www.ruimtevoorderivier.nl/english/history-of-watermanagement/

http://www.ruimtevoorderivier.nl/het-programma/

http://www.ruimtevoorderivier.nl/rivierjutters/

http://www.ruimtevoorderivier.nl/rivierjutters/wie-zijn-de-rivierjutters/

https://www.ruimtevoorderivier.nl/

https://www.ruimtevoorderivier.nl/projecten/

https://www.ruimtevoorderivier.nl/verhalen/

https://www.ruimtevoorderivier.nl/over-ons/

http://teisterbander.tumblr.com/archive

http://teisterbander.tumblr.com/post/121989045979/interview-de-rivierjutters

http://rvdr_corp_brochure_eng__def._.pdf/

http://www.uk_rvdr_dutch-water-programme-room-for-the-river.pdf/

Interview De Rivierjutters community - appendix

Interview Ruimte voor de Rivier program - appendix

n. 3 - Nagele landscape project

Figure 4 - Nagele's green structure

18

Abstract

Nagele landscape project is a plan to restore, conserve and revitalize the natural heritage of this

unique village in the North-East of the Netherlands. The project, inspired by the revolutionary

concept of the original landscape plan, aims to take care and preserve Nagele‟s natural heritage

and its historical and cultural significance for the future generations.

Indicators

Location Nagele, province of Flevoland - The Netherlands

Architects (original)

Architects groups: 8 and De Bouw

Architects (revitalization)

Buro Mien Ruys

Original project year

Ca. 50s

Dates 2014 - present (ongoing)

Status Project - Landscape plan

Aim Restoration and revitalization of the green structure of Nagele‟s village

Coordinator Nagele City Council

Parties involved City Council, province of Flevoland, Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed-RCE, Buro Mien Ruys, Nagele‟s museum, Dorpsbelang group, GroenBrigade group, local residents

Area Nagele, province of Flevoland - The Netherlands

Temporary/ permanent

Temporary

Preamble

About Buro Mien Ruys

Active since 1943 in the heart of Amsterdam, the Buro is an independent consultancy focused on

landscape projects. Their work can go from the private gardens or roof terrace till residential plans

of green structure for cities of village or renovation of natural heritage sites. They work mainly in

the Netherlands but also across the borders.

The strength of the Buro is based on the strong collaboration and high expertise of their members.

The Buro was initiated in Amsterdam in 1943 by Mien Ruys a pioneer of the modern landscape

architecture and creator of the original concept of Nagele‟s green structure.

Background

Nagele is a village in the Nord-East part of The Netherlands. It is located in the Noordoostpolder of

the country. During the fifties the village was re-thought and re-designed as a sort of ideal and

modern landscape project, a urban experiment carried out by two famous architects groups: the

“8”and “De Bouw”. The stylistic structure and the green philosophy of the village was conceived by

famous national and international architects like: Aldo van Eyck, Gerrit Rietveld, Jaap Bakema,

Cornelis van Eesteren and the only woman in the group, Mien Ruys. The aesthetic uniqueness of

Nagele comes from their constructive discussions, their artistic talent and modern ideas.

19

Nagele is immersed in green. The green plan in not just part of the urban structure of the village

but is the core and the essence of the village. The trees and shrubs, the flowers and the meadows

connect and distinguish at the same time each buildings. For its uniqueness, Nagele after 50 years

it‟s considered national heritage and for that needs to be preserved.

The Ministry of Education, Culture and Science designated Nagele as "national reconstruction

area". The City Council, the Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands-RCE and the province of

Flevoland have declared the importance of the cultural significance of Nagele and they want to

preserve its heritage. In 2013 the City Council approved an implementation plan for Nagele‟s

heritage conservation and development. It is called UitvoeringsLab and it will be developed with

the support of the Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands-RCE, for a collaboration plan

between the 2013-2015.

The UitvoeringsLab aims to renew and conserve Nagele‟s heritage. Natural heritage is a delicate

richness that is affected by the time. The original green structure was thought of during a time of

different social needs. Some plants have simply gone because of sickness or just because they

had a lifespan that is timeless that 50 years. Natural heritage is precarious and needs constant

care. The green structure, for example, wasn‟t thought for cars. The village‟s structure has to

answer to the residents‟ needs. Each part of the village has to be connected and be more

accessible and liveable for the community. The restoration plan follows the architects‟ original

concept but is applied to current needs, and in relation to the condition of the plants.

Project

The “renewal” of the green plan of Nagele has be assigned to a Dutch landscape architecture

studio: Mien Ruys. The main points that the Buro has adopted to revitalize the green structure of

Nagele have been: the historical value assessment, the analysis of the planting plans made by

Mien Ruys and Wim Boer, the inventory of the current situation. The re-plantation process has

been analyzed in collaboration with the residents. They were also asked to participate in the plants

management. The purpose of a renewal green plan of Nagele is to preserve its heritage and

vitalized its richness.

The situation of the green areas and the houses in Nagele wasn‟t so good. The houses were

empty, the green was neglected, there were not so many shops, so the municipality decided to

intervene with a plan of renovation of the village taking into account the importance of its natural

heritage.

The Buro‟s work started ca. three years ago when the City Council asked them to make a plan of

restoration and revitalization of Nagele‟s green area based on the old design. They knew really

well about the original concept of the green structure of the village, above all about the work of

Mien Ruys. So what they did was a deep research upon the original green plan, about its concept

and structure, and finally they made an interpretation of it, respecting the important points of the

original concept but adapting them to modern time and needs.

The landscape project had 2 parts. The first one was a research of the principle idea of the green

structure in the original plan. The second was the adaptation of this ideas to modern necessity and

a research of strategies and means to keep the costs of maintenance of the plan low.

The interesting aspect of the researching part was the findings. The Buro, in particular the director

Anet Scholma, discovered that the green structure of the village was based on six types of planting

that divided the areas and functions in the village. Based on the original green structure plan and

on the original hierarchy of the green‟s planting, Anet Scholma classified those types of planting in

20

6 categories, from the most outlining till the most inclusive. Those categories followed a hierarchy

from 1 till 6.

For example as described by Anet Scholma in the interview that we had, the category 1 is the most

important. It concerns the forest, high trees and shrubs that protect and outline the village‟s

boarders. They are also a sort of wind screen. Another important category is the number 2, high

trees without shrubs that make a compartment of the residential areas in the village. These two

categories are the essence of the original landscape project of Nagele and they cannot be

modified, only preserved.

Going down in the categories there are for example the categories 4 and 5 that entail the green

structure in the residential areas: the Hoven. Those are composed by small trees enriched by

berries and flowers (n.4) or strips of shrubs or flowers between the houses (n.5). Those two

categories since entail the residential ambit, can be renewed and re-designed in order to re-bring

the “season accent” thought in the original green plan by Mien Ruys. Moreover a lot of these trees

or plants don‟t exist anymore because they didn‟t have a long span life or because they have been

destroyed in building parking spaces.

For those areas in which it would possible to intervene the Buro thought to involve local residents

in the choice of plants, in the planting and maintenance processes. The Buro, in order to have

contact with the residents, organized presentations and workshops to inform and communicate

their ideas and involve them in the decisional part and in the practical project‟s process.

The Buro started the planting operations in a Hof (courtyard) with the support of the local residents

and the past spring a strip of flowers that was planted started flowering. This past May, at the end

of the Buro‟s planning work and planting operations, has been the official moment when the

municipality turned over the local residents the responsibility of the maintenance of the flowers

strip.

Currently the project of revitalization of Nagele is ongoing but the work of the Buro Mien Ruys is

finished, they made the total green structure plan of the village. The renewal project of the village is

in development and it will be realized in a period of 10 years. For other projects the City Council

will ask to other architecture bureau. The City Council wants to follow the philosophy of multi-

perspective work.

Funding (and resources)

Funding for the landscape project over the revitalization of the green structure of Nagele came

partly from RCE and partly from the local government. The total costs of the plan have been within

the budget.

Approach

The approach of Nagele landscape project is certainly top-down. The initiative of revitalization and

conservation comes from a plan approved by the City Council and supported by RCE. The plan of

the green structure of the village comes from the idea and work of the Buro Mien Ruys.

It is important to underline that the local residents have been involved by the Buro in choosing,

planting and maintaining the new green structure and its plants.

A fundamental role in the conservation and management of Nagele‟s revitalized natural heritage is

the plants maintenance. This function is a responsibility of the municipality but it is strongly

21

involving and stimulating local residents to take care of it, engaging in a fundamental part of the

process.

The instruments adopted by the Buro during the landscape project‟s realization to involve local

residents have been:

Presentations of the plan, its history, and the Buro‟s considerations

Workshops in which local residents have been involved in the choice of the plants, they have been

instructed over the future maintenance of the plants and they supported the phase of planting.

Workshop structure (about the plants‟ choice).

Anet Scholma had the idea to choose type of plants and flowers adapt to the residential areas that

were respecting the philosophy of the original green plan and the longevity and economical

conditions. She made pictures of those plants and during the workshop offered to the local

residents of to apply a sticker on the plant of flower chosen. Plants with the most vote were

selected. In this way all the participants had a voice and they were able to express their

preferences. Residents had also the opportunity to choose plants and flowers that are simple

maintain, like the grass. The Buro in this way worked following the residents‟ interests, and for

them was really important doing so.

Buro‟s approach results.

Following this way of approaching with local residents involving them directly and responsibly in

the project‟s process, the Buro noticed that people at the end were more aware and proud about

their local heritage. This operation made them conscious, responsible and proactive toward the

conservation and maintenance of Nagele‟s natural heritage.

Phase of public participation in the project.

- Presentations - Information and communication from the Buro - opinions and suggestions

from the residents

- Workshops - Decision making, traineeships

- Planting - Support, collaboration and active participation

- Maintenance - Active participation and responsibility

Considerations

An interesting approach of the municipality towards the public participation has been indeed to try

to give to the local residents interested the opportunity to take care of the natural heritage of the

village. The maintenance entails few expenses; this was not made for money but in order to make

sure that people “adopt” the plants. In this way people are more responsible towards what it

belongs to them, not just enjoying the aesthetics part but actually taking care of it preserving and

maintaining for the future. The daily care is the spirit of the natural heritage conservation. In this

way the public involvement is essential.

An interesting approach to the public participation has been the initiative of the Buro to involve the

local residents interested in the choice of the plants, and training them in maintenance.

22

In both initiatives people were actively and responsibly involved. Moreover methods democratic

and transparent have been utilized that is always the right way to develop a project.

It is also important to underline that at first residents were a bit skeptical about the project and

there wasn‟t an enthusiastic participation. People were a bit afraid over the procedure of

maintenance, but the support, training and advices of the Buro helped them to be reassured and

start doing it.

Another point of reflection is that the project is just started so we cannot see the results yet, that

was also another point of local residents skepticism. As Anet Scholma affirmed in the interview that

we had, it has been fundamental to start and inform people about the importance of the project, let

them decide and foster their interest to overtake the initial skepticism.

Success factors

1. Residents‟ involvement

The residents‟ involvement as active and decisional part of the project has been a good strategy to

enhance people‟s awareness and interest toward the project and its significance.

2. Information and communication

It is always a factor of success to inform and communicate a project to the people involved and

affected by. This is a factor of democracy and transparency that helps to establish connections and

minimize misunderstandings

3. Utilization of the meantime

Let the project start and try to involve people since the principle. This is a good point for a

successful project. Use the meanwhile is useful to raise awareness, interest and support for the

project. This will overtake the initial skepticism. It will bring economic and human resources useful

to final result

4. Professionals

The professionals‟ work and the tools utilized to get people involved like presentations and

workshops have been a smart, creative and efficient way to get the local residents attention and

support

5. Collaboration

Collaboration between the Buro and local residents has been essential to the first and successful

result of the project. Also the collaborations established with the different authorities and

organizations have been important for the plan‟s development

More info (and references)

http://www.mienruys.nl/home

http://www.mienruys.nl/groen_erfgoed/projecten/nagele

Scholma Anet. Nagele. Monumenten, n.10, October 2014. p. 14-17. Print

http://www.noordoostpolder.nl/Uitvoeringslabnagele/_

Anita Blom. Nieuw groen. RCE publication. Kade met karakter, n. 2, 2015. Cover. Print

Interview Nagele landscape project – appendix

23

n. 4 - Tramremise de Hallen project

Figure 5 - Former tram depot, Amsterdam West Figure 6 - De Hallen centre, gallery

Abstract

The former tram depot in Tollensstraat, in Amsterdam West, for years empty and without a

function, has been revitalized and rezoned in the new centre for social, cultural, and economic

development of the Old West district.

Indicators

Location Tollensstraat 60 1053RW Amsterdam – The Netherlands

Architect (original) Office of Public Works, Amsterdam City Council

Architect (transformation)

André van Stigt

Contruction year 1901-1903

Transformation year 2013-2014

Monumentstatus National monument

Monumentnumber 524818

Old function Tram depot and work offices GVB

New functie Centre for Media, Culture, Fashion, Arts&Crafts

Owner TROM foundation

Parties involved Stadsdeel West, Stichting TROM, Vereniging Rond de Hallen, Stichting Stadsherstel

Described by NPH

Area 15000m²

Temporary/ permanent Permanent

Users Openbare Bibliotheek, Vondel Hotels, De Filmhallen, Kindercentrum Wereldkids e.a.

24

Preamble

Tramremise de Hallen project is one of the 7 projects analyzed and taken as example by the

Kennis en Projectenbank Herbestemming (Knowledge and projects of Rezoning) that is an

initiative carried out by the Nationale Agenda Herbestemming.

De Nationale Agenda Herbestemming is an organization that creates and promotes projects,

programs, and connections to foster the importance of rezoning practice and support its

development in order to take care of empty buildings, areas, and structures; re-qualifying them and

give them a new life connected to the local community‟s and environment‟s needs. The

organization aims to promote the rezoning practice rather than demolition and reconstruction in

order to prevent abandonment and decay, develop sustainable strategies, preserve and revitalize

local heritage.

The Kennis en Projectenbank Herbestemming initiative aims to apply the organization‟s mission

and vision. Tips, advises and projects have been developed as examples of the effectiveness of

the rezoning in the social and cultural life of a local community, moreover as sustainable and

innovative practice to preserve monumental buildings and buildings that represent the history of

the neighborhood.

This initiative is a practical instrument to develop and devolve knowledge and information in order

to be applied, and be a support for future rezoning projects.

The KPH website has a clear overview and practical examples about the rezoning practice and its

implications. Moreover the role of the citizens in the process of rezoning is a central point of

analysis. Citizens‟ participation and initiatives are more effective and common nowadays. They are

the engine of their neighborhood‟s revitalization. The Kennis en Projectenbank Herbestemming

has taken as example 7 projects concerning rezoning practice in the Netherlands.

The results of the success factors of the projects analyzed are synthesized in these 8 points or

better “tips for enterprising citizens” as called in the Kennis en Projectenbank Herbestemming plan.

These tips, in a public participation‟s context, are incisive and effective points of analysis in order to

develop methods and strategies to the public involvement than can be easily applied not only in the

rezoning practice but also in the conservation field.

1. Be enthusiastic

Enthusiasm is one of the most important factor of a project‟s success. Enthusiasm and passion

creates support, involvement, and cooperation. This factor facilitate the project‟s development till

its realization. Enthusiasm is, in most of the cases, part of a persons‟ character. It reflects their

feeling of belonging and belief. It is the expression of their awareness and action. It is extremely

important and a factor of successful approach for a project, in every field both, e.g., rezoning and

conservation.

2. Organize yourself/selves

It is important to find allies from the outset. A group is stronger than an individual. A group has an

wider engagement range, can develop fast and can carry out multiple tasks, can be more effective

for requests. Last but not least a “group voice” can be heard from far and louder.

3. Opt for cooperation

That‟s really effective to create collaboration and cooperation in different level: local, municipal,

provincial, regional, even national. This brings support and let your project be accepted and

25

developed faster. Moreover different points of view are always expression of democracy, thus

easier to the project‟s development, and can enrich the project‟s perspectives and opportunities.

4. Get enough in-house knowledge

Knowledge, expertise and experience are important factors for the project‟s successful realization.

Usually the initiatives are taken by professional citizens that can be involved in the process in a

professional way, be a support, and an extra resource. Moreover, it is important to record and

create an archive over the new knowledge, expertise and experience acquired during the process‟

development. It would be important for the future projects. Not less important is also the attitude to

learn by doing. This attitude creates connections, pro-activism, incentivize further initiatives and

creativity, and of course enthusiasm.

5. Looking for good functions

Develop the functions based on the neighborhood‟s needs. Usually the classical functions linked to

the social and cultural development. Those sympathetic functions do not always generate money

soon and for a project development is also important to cover costs. So it is useful to think about

profitable functions that can support the social and cultural functions‟ development. The economic

sphere is necessary for a local development because creates opportunities and job positions.

6. Utilize the meantime

Use the temporary functions and their transitory nature to support and discover new opportunities

and aspects of the final project‟s realization. Temporary functions are also useful to taste the social

environment, the neighborhood‟s appreciation and involvement. They can be positive to get new

initiatives and funding.

7. Opt for development management

Take into account the option of the building‟s changing. This is important to adapt the building‟s

rezoning to the future social, cultural, and economical changes in the neighborhood, and to the

future local community‟s needs. Choose for flexibility, and a strategy of a not ending management

development.

8. Search for funding

Looking for funding and resources. Dare to take responsibilities and risks. The entrepreneurial

courage is a key of approbation and support. Opt to create cooperatives. A cooperative has the

ownership, the control over the direction of the company. So all citizens and stakeholders that are

part of a cooperative share ownerships, risks but also benefits.

Foster the volunteers role. They are an important resource in matter of experience, skills,

expertise, and enthusiasm. They are part of the community and they bring into the project this

important context and background. They are an added value. Try to offer also internship and work

positions in a way to offer economical and professional benefits.

This initiative concerns rezoning practices and not directly conservation but I wanted to study and

analyze it because of the practical advices developed, for example the tips for enterprising citizens,

and also because the practice of rezoning in certain way is an instrument to take care of heritage.

It is a way to not let decay and forget heritage and its significance. The mechanisms explained of

citizens‟ involvement are really effective. All the process could be applied in the heritage

conservation field, with the same approaches to the public engagement.

26

Taking care and re-qualifying entails, in a larger perspective, the preservation of the common

history and applying the symbols of that history to new needs. In this way the rezoning practice is

an important method to improve citizens‟ quality life, socially, culturally and economically without

lose their local identity. Rezoning creates also opportunities, that‟s why citizens take initiatives and

want to be involved. This would be an important incipit also in the practice of conservation and in

general to the heritage care.

I took this project into exam because, since I live nearby, I had chance during these years to

experiment the neighborhood before and after the rezoning project.

Background

Already in 2004 Stadsdeel West (the municipality of the West district) of Amsterdam planned to

rezone the former tram depot buildings complex of the Kinkerbuurt area. This complex has

monumental status, industrial architecture and has been built between 1901-1903. The

municipality of Amsterdam West wanted to give a new social and commercial function to the

buildings. During the years, according with developers partners, they wanted to transform the

former tram depot complex in the first indoor entertainment centre of the Netherlands. This plan

followed years of protests by the local residents. They fought to develop an alternative plan for the

project addressed to the neighborhood‟s needs and way of living.

Project

In the years 2013-2014 the rezoning of the former tram depot in the Old West area of Amsterdam

was completed. The complex has been preserved as monumental buildings, rezoned, and

revitalized as De Hallen Centre for media, culture, fashion, arts&crafts. The architect that has

collaborated with local residents and municipality to develop an alternative and neighborhood‟s

addressed plan is André van Stigt. The architect and the local residents established a Tramremise

Development Operation (the TROM foundation) to create social, economic, and cultural facilities

and opportunities for the district.

The centre is a sort of buildings passage that connects Tenkatestraat (the market area) and

Bilderdijkkade. It is composed by two sections, a big one connects Tenkatestraat and Tollenstraat.

In this part are concentrated the majority of facilities of the project. There are a big movie theater, a

big area with different spots to eat (a sort of cover food market), a library, kids care, an art gallery,

and crafts shops. In the smaller building that connects Tollensstraat and Bijderdijkkade there are

other crafts shop.

The rezoning process tried to preserve the monumental complex as much as possible, and the

final result has been a wonderful cohesion among the complex's conservation, its memories'

preservation, and the development of the new function.

Funding (and resources)

The renovation of the tram depot de Hallen has had a mixed form of financing; from banks (e.g.

Triodos bank) and private financiers (e.g. private investors); by purchasing one of the eight halls

Stadsherstel NV and some semi-public facilities and spaces(like garage and passage) by the

government. National Restoration Fund provided a loan with low interests.

27

Approach

Already in 2004 the Stadsdeel West of Amsterdam planned to redevelop the unused former tram

depot of Tollensstraat in a centre with social and commercial functions.

So during the following years the West municipality established a collaboration with a group of

developers to transform the complex in the first indoor entertainment centre in the Netherlands.

This so commercial and megalomaniac project, as asserted by Hanna Klomp (local resident and

chairman of the local community association “Rond de Hallen”), found years of opposition by the

local residents that did not want to transform their so quiet neighborhood in a Luna park.

The local residents, indeed, teamed up in an association “Rond de Hallen”, trying to have more

voice in the project‟s process and be involved in an active and decisional way. They were

supported by experts and professionals. The protests encountered years of not good results.

In 2010, due to also the strong public voice, the municipality‟s direction over the project changed.

They were more willing to satisfy the neighborhood‟s needs. An important support has been

offered by the project‟s architect, André van Stigt that has been the mediator between the

municipality‟s and local residents‟ interests.

Van Stigt and “Rond de Hallen” association collaborated to develop an alternative plan more

addressed and focused on the neighborhood‟s needs, trying to develop social, cultural, and

economic resources and opportunities for the Old West area of Amsterdam. They founded the

TROM – Tramremise development – that it is now the owner of the complex.

A different bottom-up initiative coming from the local community followed the original top-down

approach of the district‟s municipality. Consequently, during the project‟s process horizontal

connections has been established between the parties involved. So the top-down initial approach

and the consecutive bottom-up initiative became a mixed approach. This has produced dialogue

among the parties and a possibility to develop a project that satisfied all the interests involved. The

result of this mixed approach was the changing of the original project‟s direction towards its

different and successful final realization.

Considerations

The final result of the tram depot development process reflects a collaboration built during years of

contestations between local residents and municipality. All the activities in de Hallen centre are

addressed to the neighborhood‟s development in matter of social, cultural and economic

improvement. The shops, for example, but also the food centre, are an incentive for the local

producers and it creates opportunities for the local residents. According to the municipality

expectations, the centre is actually a point of indoor attraction of the Old West area of Amsterdam.

This sort of entertainment is productive and respects the needs of the local environment.

The local community‟s involvement has been really important for the final results of the project, that

it is appreciated also by other neighborhoods (according to my personal experience). The public

participation entailed support not only in a practical way but also in the decisional sphere, that

made the difference in the project‟s realization, and it resulted productive for the local ambit. On

the other hand it has been really important the dialogue among the parties, and the finally open-

minded of the authorities to create collaboration and let the project evolve till its realization.

De Hallen centre won on the 14th of April 2015 the European Union Prize for Cultural Heritage /

Europa Nostra Awards. This award is considered the most prestigious prize in the heritage field.

Europa Nostra Awards has honored projects that have been powerful examples of creativity and

28

innovation for the Europe‟s cultural heritage, in four categories: conservation, research and

digitalization, dedicated services to heritage, and education, training and awareness-raising.

Here below is quoted the comment of the jury for the award. I wanted to report it integrally because

it resumes all the success factors of the project‟s development. Moreover underlines the

importance of the different roles, collaborations, the significance of heritage care applied to modern

times, and the importance of the public involvement in the local heritage‟s conservation and

renovation process.

The jury's comments: “De Jury zwaait de zorgvuldige en nuchtere renovatie van dit

gebouwencomplex en zijn bescheiden interieur ontwerp grote lof toe. Alle belangrijke overblijfselen

uit de tijd van het tramdepot zijn zo goed bewaard dat de desbetreffende geschiedenis nog steeds

zichtbaar is, ondanks het feit dat het de nieuwe gebruikers gegund is zich onder moderne

levensstandaarden te vestigen. Zonder de vasthoudendheid van buurtgenoten en krakers en

toegewijde vakmensen zou dit complex, waar men nu zoveel plezier aan beleeft, verloren zijn

geraakt. De Hallen zijn een huldebetoon aan het doorzettingsvermogen van de betrokkenen, zowel

de professionelen als de buurtbewoners, om deze industriële gebouwen, die een deel zijn van de

collectieve herinneringen, te behouden.”

("The jury wields the careful and sober renovation of this building complex and modest interior

design major praises. All important relics from the era of the tram depot are so well preserved that

the relevant history is still visible, despite the fact that it has been awarded new users to establish

themselves among modern living standards. Without the tenacity of local residents, squatters and

dedicated professionals this complex, where now people spend pleasant time, would have been

lost. De Hallen is a tribute to the perseverance of those involved, both professionals and local

residents, to maintain these industrial buildings, which are part of the collective memories”).

( http://dehallen-amsterdam.nl/europa-nostra-prijs-voor-de-hallen/ )

Success factors

1. Residents‟ initiative and motivation

The local residents‟ resistance to the initial plan for de Hallen centre was essential to give the right

nature to the project‟s realization. Ones again the enthusiasm, the sense of belonging and belief of

the local residents fostered the project‟s idea, and opened a new scenario for its better

development.

2. Support

The dialogue created between local residents and municipality gave the possibility to address the

project‟s development in the right way, respecting the needs and desires of all stakeholders.

3. Collaboration

For the successful project‟s realization it has been fundamental to build connections and

cooperation among the parties involved. TROM foundation (Tramremise development) has been

the fundamental instrument to establish a more sustainable and long term vision of the project. The

support and open vision of the architect André van Stigt, and its role of mediator between

municipality interests and local community‟s expectations and motivations, has been really

important.

4. Professionals

29

An added value and resource for the project was the presence of professionals in the local

community‟s action, this brought knowledge and experience to the project that is always important

in matter of idea, support, and time.

5. Group

The initiative moved from the local community in order to establish an alternative plan for de Hallen

centre has had force because of the group voice. The community took the risk to create a

foundation (TROM) in order to raise awareness and decisional power in the project‟s process. The

result was the ownership of the complex and with it responsibilities but also control.

More info (and references)

http://www.kennisbankherbestemming.nu/

http://www.kennisbankherbestemming.nu/projecten/tramremise-de-hallen-amsterdam

www.tramremisedehallen.nl

www.west.amsterdam.nl/projecten/stedelijke/de_hallen/

De nieuwe collectieven, article in e-magazine #1 (March 2013) of the “Nationaal Programma

Herbestemming” with an interview of Eisse Kalk, chairman TROM

Projectbeschrijving op de website Agora Europa

http://dehallen-amsterdam.nl/europa-nostra-prijs-voor-de-hallen/

n. 5 - Lex Horn’s sgraffito art work

Figure 7 - "Composition of elements of alchemy", Lex Horn, 1960

30

Abstract

The artwork “Composition of elements of alchemy” of the artist Lex Horn has been saved from

destruction this past April 2015 in Leiden, thanks to the heirs‟ initiative, and with the support of the

local community, cultural heritage organizations, and the municipality of Leiden.

Indicators

Location Wassenaarseweg 64 2333 AL Leiden - The Netherlands

Artist Lex Horn (1916-1968)

Creation year 1960

Rescue year 2015

Status Artwork - sgraffito, concrete relief

Old location Stairwell former Clusius Laboratory, Leiden University

New location To be established

Owner (temporary) Bond Heemschut

Parties involved Heirs, RCE, Bond Heemschut, Leiden municipality, FORM BV

Described by Journalistic sources

Temporary/ permanent Temporary

Users To be established

Preamble

About Bond Heemschut Erfgoedvereninging

Bond Heemschut heritage organization is a Dutch association for the preservation of cultural

monuments. It was founded in 1911 in Amsterdam and its headquarter is still in Amsterdam in

Nieuwezijdskolk. It is one of the largest and oldest private associations to protect cultural

monuments in Netherlands. The organization contributed to the creation of laws and regulations in

the field of wealth preservation and care. Bond Heemschut heritage organization supports the

Dutch Monuments Act (1961) because “protecting the Dutch heritage is a contribute to the identity

of The Netherlands”.

Background

“Composition of elements of alchemy” is an artwork made by the Amsterdam artist Lex Horn

(1916-1968) in 1960 for the city of Leiden.

The artwork is a concrete relief, a 3 parts sgraffito, that has been created for the former Clusius

Laboratory of the University of Leiden in Wassenaarseweg 64 and has been the beautiful scene of

the stairwell of the laboratory. This concrete relief was realized with a unique material technique

used in the Netherlands during the Reconstruction period (1940-1965). It represents one of the

most monumental work of Lex Horn and a unique artwork of the Reconstruction period in the

Netherlands.

31

Project

The RCE – Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed - has estimated, in March 2015, the sgraffito as

important because of its material technique and because is one of the most important postwar

monumental work in Leiden.

The artwork has been not evaluated as it should be by the local authorities, and since the building

had to be demolished, the sgraffito risked destruction as well.

Thanks to the stakeholders, the community‟s mobilization, and the Bond Heemschut organization

the artwork has been saved at the end of April 2015. The company FORM BV and Leiden‟s

municipality agreed to remove carefully the concrete relief from the building. The Bond Heemschut

organization provided for a temporary storage of the sgraffito and it will provide for the future

relocation of the artwork as well.

Case‟s development.

Bond Heemschut has the temporary ownership of the 3 parts sgraffito. It paid for the transport and

the storage of the artwork.

Leiden‟s municipality agreed in give the temporary ownership to the Bond Heemschut and paid for

the artwork‟s removal.

Current situation.

Bond Heemschut is looking for a large place to store the 3 walls artwork and for its future

relocation. They are asking the local community and all the stakeholders (through e-mail) for

opinions, ideas, and tips about the sgraffito‟s storage and its future relocation.

Funding (and resources)

Bond Heemschut organization has the temporary ownership of the 3 parts sgraffito. It paid for the

transport and the storage of the artwork. The Bond Heemschut organization provided for a

temporary storage of the sgraffito and it will provide for the future relocation of the artwork as well.

The company FORM BV and Leiden‟s municipality agreed to remove carefully the concrete relief

from the building. Leiden‟s municipality agreed to give the temporary ownership to the Bond

Heemschut organization and paid for the artwork‟s removal.

Approach

The approach to the artwork‟s rescue and care followed a bottom-up way. The heirs of Lex Horn,

indeed, moved from the awareness over the value of the dad‟s artwork, tried to raise public

awareness around the sgraffito‟s destruction, and find support to rescue it. In particular the

daughter Meinke Horn started in her website to inform people about the issue and made them

aware over the importance of her father‟s artwork. Moreover she tried to involve people in letting

the local authorities aware about the value of the sgraffito for the city and save it from the

destruction. She has done her best to save the artwork and preserve its memory with a careful

work of documentation and public opinion information.

RCE made a public evaluation over the artistic and historical value of the artwork that has been a

professional support to the cause.

The heritage organization Bond Heemschut was one of the first mobilized to rescue the artwork,

also Walter van der Peijpe - Leiden‟s city council representative - was willing to find a solution.

32

So the first bottom-up approach, supported by organizations and experts, found the approval and

mobilization of the local authorities (Leiden‟s municipality) and consequently an effective top-down

initiative that has saved the sgraffito.

Considerations

The mechanisms and strategies used to raise awareness in the public opinion over the sgraffito‟s

case, and to involve all the stakeholders in the rescue‟s process can be resumed in the following

points.

1. Information and documentation

Through press and website

2. Participation in decision making

People were encouraged to sign an appeal (adhesion declaration) addressed to the

Leiden‟s council in which all the participants recognized the value in three parts of the

artwork, certified also by the RCE, and the will to preserve it and eventually to relocate it.

3. Participation in ideas and opinions

People were encouraged to send to the Horn‟s daughters ideas and/or better solutions to

solve the sgraffito‟s issue.

4. Foster bottom-up initiatives

The Horn‟s daughters asked people to send messages to the Leiden‟s municipality in

support of the sgraffito‟s case in order to let the local authority faced with the community‟s

opinion.

5. Practical and financial support

Donations have been an original Lex Horn daughters‟ idea to support the removal of the

sgraffito from the building, and its storage.

The rescue‟s process, starting with a bottom-up approach, followed the below path, that, with the

support of “horizontal connections” came to the successful result to save and conserve Lex Horn‟s

sgraffito.

Process (of public involvement as support of heritage care):

awareness - support/collaboration – rescue/conservation

Success factors

1. Passion and awareness

Lex Horn daughters‟ awareness and passion towards their dad‟s artwork was the engine of the

rescue process‟ development. Their passion created public involvement and awareness towards

the sgraffito‟s case.

33

2. Support

Community‟s, cultural heritage organizations‟, and finally Leiden‟s municipality involvement and

support let the rescue‟s process go on till its successful result. Social, cultural, and economic

support have been fundamental for the sgraffito‟s conservation.

3. Group

The group that has been constituted around the sgraffito‟s case more than the only Horn‟s

daughters created a louder voice and consensus, and let the municipality face with the sgraffito‟s

issue.

4. Knowledge, expertise, experience

The contribute and evaluation of the RCE and the strong support of the Bond Heemschut

organization have underlined and devolved the real artistic importance of Horn‟s artwork.

5. Cooperation

Cooperation among the all stakeholders has been fundamental to find a solution to the sgraffito‟s

issue.

6. Development management

The flexibility on save first the artwork, store it in a safe place, and then give it a future relocation

has been a smart attitude to not let the artwork be destroyed.

More info (and references)

http://www.leidschdagblad.nl/regionaal/leidenenregio/article27363335.ece/Sgraffito-Horn-is-

zeldzaam-topstuk_

http://erfgoedstem.nl/steun-actie-om-leidse-wederopbouw-sgraffito-te-behouden/

http://meinkehorn.nl/laatste-kans-behoud-sgraffito-lex-horn/

http://meinkehorn.nl/sgraffito-horn-is-zeldzaam-topstuk/

http://meinkehorn.nl/sgraffito-van-de-kunstenaar-lex-horn-is-gered/

http://www.heemschut.nl/nl.html

34

n. 6 - Museumstraat Amsterdam event

Figure 8 - House n.9, Allard Pierson Museum

Abstract

Museumstraat Amsterdam event is an initiative that aims to offer a different point of view regarding

heritage and museum collections management.

For one day museum collections change their locations coming to people‟s homes. Experts and

local residents collaborate to “introduce” heritage in a familiar and local context in order to develop

a more comfortable approach toward it.

Indicators

Location Pretoriusstraat 1092 EW, Amsterdam- The Netherlands

Event date 23/05/2015

Status Event – Museumstraat Amsterdam

Aim Bring museum collections to people‟s homes. Collaboration between owners and museum curators to organize mini-exhibitions. Be a museum director for one day.

Coordinator Museumstraat Amsterdam, Reinwardt Academy students

Parties involved

Pretoriusstraat residents, Museumstraat Amsterdam, Reinwardt Academy students, De Appel Arts Centre, Tropenmuseum, Amsterdam Museum, ARCAM, FOAM, the EYE, CBK, Hortus Botanicus, UNESCO Werelderfgoed podium, Allard Pierson Museum, Multatuli Huis

Area Pretoriusstraat, Amsterdam (East area), NL

Temporary/ permanent

Temporary

35

Preamble

About Museumstraat Amsterdam

Mission.

Give new meaning to heritage, enriching it with community personal stories. Explore a new

location, houses rather than museums. Discover a new heartwarming and creative dimension of

the heritage with a direct support of the community.

Background

Museumstraat Amsterdam event comes from an initiative of the Reinwardt Academy students.

They has been involved 11 museumsof Amsterdam in creating mini-exhibitions at home. The event

is enriched by workshops and concerts all around the neighborhood. It is a celebration of the art

and culture. Museums come to people‟s homes and they enrich the community‟s life and the spirit

of the neighborhood. This event fosters and encourages people‟s interest toward art.

The original idea comes from Rotterdam. The first Museumstraat experiment / event was in 2013 in

Rotterdam around the streets of the museum district. It was such a success that Museumstraat has

become a permanent organization and it will extend in different cities of The Netherlands. The

second event was, indeed, in Amsterdam the 23th of May 2015.

Event

For one day people organize an exhibition space, being a museum director. Owners with the help

of curators and museum staff have created in a familiar atmosphere an exhibition with pieces of

collection taken from the museums‟ depot and with personal owners objects. Museums come

home and heritage explores the daily life‟s dimension. People are directly and actively involved in

the collection management and exhibition design. Pretoriusstraat community experiences heritage

by doing and by viewing, and in a totally different location.

This event aims to connect people with heritage and museums world in a way more practical,

engaging, in a comfortable and familiar surroundings.

Event‟s structure.

This event took place between Pretoriusstraat and Steve Bikoplein (info point and concerts‟ area),

East area of Amsterdam, the 23th of May 2015, from 11:00 till 17:30. Eleven houses were opened

to the public and 11 mini-exhibitions created there in collaboration between the houses‟ owners

and the museum professionals.

Eleven museums participated.

- De Appel Arts Centre

- Tropenmuseum

- Amsterdam Museum

- ARCAM

- CBK

- UNESCO Werelderfgoed podium

- Hortus Botanicus

- Foam

- Allard Pierson Museum

36

- The EYE film museum

- Multatuli Huis

Each museum collaborated with a singular house. Together they organized and exposed pieces of

collection from the museums depot. Everybody has been invited to participate to the “house-

museum route” and to the event‟s activities. This has been a way to share heritage and personal

stories. This event has been a creative and cultural means to get people closer to heritage

rediscovering their own neighborhood.

Houses exhibitions / activities‟ description.

1. In collaboration with the Appel Arts Centre

Personal collection exhibition and one minute sculpture. Using the object from the house and a

podium, people were invited to create, also with themselves a nice subject for a picture. The

pictures that have been realize dare available on the Museumstraat Amsterdam website.

2. In collaboration with Tropenmuseum

In the Glutenvrij shop there was an exhibition with two Bolivian masks taken from the

Tropenmuseum depot, a video about the original Bolivian carnival (using that masks), and a dance

workshop to recreate the spiritual carnival atmosphere.

3. In collaboration with Amsterdam Museum

Recreation of the atmosphere of the Transvaalbuurt in the 19-20 centuries about the life of the

Jewish artist Joseph Mendes da Costa.

4. In collaboration with ARCAM

In the yoga Studio 13, in S. Bikoplein, there was an exhibition about the winner architectural

projects of the last year. There was also the possibility to talk with the architect of one studio. The

panels of the exhibition become today the new division of the yoga studio.

5. In collaboration with CBK Amsterdam

The owners Jan and Junai Meijer exhibited the artworks of Junai. She is an artist and she has

recreated a personal exhibition in her living room and corridor.

6. In collaboration with UNESCO Werelderfgoed podium

Smell and taste of heritage. It was a creative route with pots where everybody was invited to smell.

They recreated smells of world heritage. The “smelling exhibition” was in the living room of the

house. In the kitchen there was a tasting route with Dutch typical sweetness as samples.

7. In collaboration with Hortus Botanicus

Discussion and debate about the plants of the apartment and their characteristics with the support

of the experts in the field from the Hortus Botanicus.

8. In collaboration with FOAM

Discussion with museum staff about exhibition realized using photographs from the Foam

collection.

9. In collaboration with Allard Pierson Museum

37

People sat on the house couch enjoyed the debate and explanation given by museum staff about

pieces of the Allard Pierson Museum‟s collection depot.

10. In collaboration with the EYE film museum

Two floors apartment were organized in a projection - exhibition with movies from the EYE‟s

collection. There were projections on the stairs, on the bed in the bedroom, on the bathtub in the

bathroom. PC in the studio were turned on with videos and movies of the collection.

11. In collaboration with Multatuli Huis

In the schoenmaker Wazgo shop has been displayed, in a display case, pieces of Multatuli Huis‟

collection. The decision made to have the exhibition in a schoenmaker shop was because of the

passion for travel and democracy of Multatuli.

Funding (and resources)

Museumstraat Amsterdam event has been realized thanks to the contribution of the following

partners:

Reinwardt Academie, Gemeente Amsterdam Stadsdeel Oost, Museum zonder Muren, Blik

Openers (Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam), Cultuur Ondernemen, Heim, Michel-Inn, Voor de Kunst,

Rum Baba, Helal et Gida, Meram, Iam, Fonds voor Oost, het Uizendbureau voor Vrijwillingers,

Museumtickets.nl.

The collaboration with all the museums involved has been important to the event‟s realization as

well. There wasn‟t a ticket entrance for the event but a voluntary donation.

Approach

People from the area of Pretoriusstraat and Steve Bikoplein were first invited to take part to the

event. It was explained them all the initiatives and asked if they were willing to participate in

opening for one day their house to the public and the “museums”, and create together a “home-

exhibition”. Then, for the people that accepted to participate, it has been organized a “speed-date”

with the museums representatives to analyze people‟s cultural taste and understand which

collaboration could be more appropriate for each participant and museum. Finally they start to

collaborate together in creating the exhibition.

People reacted positively to the initiative. Creativity, decision making, personal inputs and stories

have been good vehicles-strategies to involve people in the project.

Information about the method of community‟s involvement in the event‟s process have been taken

from a chat with the owner of the first home-exhibition, Renske de Groot, (Pretoriusstraat 30-I, the

house n.1 in collaboration with De Appel Arts Centre).

This initiative has a top-down approach but it is strongly supported by the local community. Indeed

it has been created an horizontal connection between experts and community during the event‟s

realization. People have been involved in an active and creative way.

38

Considerations

This event and case study doesn‟t concern the analysis of the public involvement in the heritage

conservation field. It entails public participation to the heritage management. I have chosen to

include also this case because it offers a different point of view in approaching with heritage.

With this event people don‟t have to go to museums to see collections; it is the collection that

comes to them. Heritage, in this way, has another perspective, it is located in another context and

can be “used” by people in another way.

This radical approach creates a more comfortable way to relate people with heritage and get them

closer to it. It has been an expedient of public involvement through a strong and effective strategy.

Thanks to the collaboration developed between owners and experts - mostly museum curators – a

proper way to manage heritage and take care of it has been realized. This collaboration developed

also a sense of ownership and responsibility of the local community of Pretoriusstraat towards

heritage.

Museumstraat experiment will increase people‟s interest and awareness toward museums and

their collections. They will finally see them in a more familiar way.

I took this event as case study also because the strategy adopted could be applied to the

conservation field with positives results regarding public involvement.

Success factors

1. Enlarge the perspective

The approach adopted to this event to bring the museum collections to people‟s homes is an

interesting and powerful expedient and experiment to see heritage through another point of view.

This permits the community to have practical contact with heritage and “use” it. This new way of

approaching heritage is important because it empowers people. It is a strong means to foster

people‟s interest and awareness toward museum‟s world and take part of it. This success factor

stimulates people‟s involvement and the responsibility regarding museum objects.

2. Community‟s involvement

This event could have been realized only with the community‟s involvement and motivation. Their

contribution has been essential to the event‟s objective realization.

3. Support

Professionals‟ support helped owners to take care properly of museum objects and stimulate them

to realize interesting and attracting exhibitions. Knowledge brought at home by experts has been

important to foster people‟s interest and enhance their knowledge regarding the history and

characteristics of the museum objects hosted.

The partners‟ support has been essential as well to the event‟s realization

4. Creativity

Creativity has been the key point of the exhibitions‟ realization. This factor produced enthusiasm

amongst the community members and encouraged also other people to participate

5. Collaboration

39

Collaboration has been another key point of the successful result of the event. Collaboration

between different organizations, and collaboration between museums and local community have

been the engine of the event‟s development.

More info (and references)

http://www.museumstraat.nl/home/

http://www.museumstraat.nl/museumstraat-pretoriusstraat/

http://www.museumstraat.nl/event-info/

http://www.museumstraat.nl/de-musea/

http://www.museumstraat.nl/partners/

n. 7 - SOS! Save Outdoor Sculpture program

Figure 9 - C. Columbus, Ferdinand von Miller II, 1884

Abstract

SOS! Save Outdoor Sculpture is a joint program carried out by the Smithsonian American Art

Museum and the Heritage Preservation. This program has been a resource to identifying,

documenting, preserving, and conserving outdoor sculptures all over the country, USA.

40

Indicators

Location Washington, DC - United States of America

Dates 1989 - present (ongoing)

Status Program - Save Outdoor Sculpture in USA

Aim Documentation, inventory, preservation, conservation, maintenance of outdoor sculptures

Coordinators Heritage Preservation and Smithsonian American Art Museum

Parties involved Heritage Preservation, Smithsonian American Art Museum, volunteers, artists, local communities, local authorities, etc.

Area United States of America

Temporary/ permanent

Permanent

Preamble

About Heritage Preservation - The National Institute for Conservation, Washington, DC - USA

“Heritage Preservation is a mission-driven, independent, public policy organization dedicated to

preserving the cultural, historic, and scientific heritage of the United States. By identifying risks,

developing innovative programs, and providing broad public access to expert advice, Heritage

Preservation assists the museums, libraries, archives, organizations, and individuals that care for

our endangered heritage”. ( http://www.heritagepreservation.org/ABOUTHP/info.htm )

Heritage Preservation‟s mission:

“To preserve the nation’s heritage for future generations through innovative leadership, education,

and programs”. ( http://www.heritagepreservation.org/ABOUTHP/info.htm )

About the Smithsonian American Art Museum - Washington, DC - USA

“The Smithsonian American Art Museum, the nation's first collection of American art, is an

unparalleled record of the American experience. The collection captures the aspirations, character,

and imagination of the American people throughout three centuries. The museum is the home to

one of the largest and most inclusive collections of American art in the world. Its artworks reveal

key aspects of America's rich artistic and cultural history from the colonial period to today”.

( http://americanart.si.edu/visit/about/ )

The Smithsonian American Art Museum‟s mission:

“The Smithsonian American Art Museum is dedicated to collecting, understanding, and enjoying

American art. The Museum celebrates the extraordinary creativity of artists whose works reflect the

American experience and global connections”.

( http://americanart.si.edu/visit/about/ )

41

Program

Since 1989 SOS! Save Outdoor Sculpture program is committed to celebrate and preserve outdoor

sculptures in the United States of America, and their artistic and cultural significance. The program

follows a multifaceted approach to the preservation‟s practice that has implications in a

professional but also social and educational level.

The objectives of the SOS! program are to foster conservation treatments, raise public awareness

toward the importance and the artistic value of outdoor sculptures, educational purpose as a way

to get close to art and improve the cultural ambit, long-term maintenance practice as goal for

heritage care‟s education.

Practical tools and advices have been developed in order to inform and involve people to the

outdoor sculptures‟ knowledge and their preservation. The program has helped to conserve and

maintain many and many outdoor sculptures all around the US. Moreover it has generated

awareness, appreciation, and sense of ownership toward the sculptures and the art in public

spaces in general.

More than 7.000 volunteers are engaged in the SOS! program and are a fundamental support to

document and collect information, status conditions, and background of the outdoor sculptures in

different communities all around the country. They have collected data for more than 32.000 public

outdoor sculptures across the United States.

More than half of the 32.000 public sculptures documented by SOS! volunteers need to be

conserved and/or maintained due to the precarious status conditions.

The information and documentation gathered by the volunteers of SOS! program over the outdoor

sculptures have been added to the Smithsonian American Art Museum’s Inventories of American

Painting and Sculpture‟s database.

SOS! program focuses on the preservation of outdoor sculptures of different communities in order

to help them to save their treasure. This action, apart the obvious and fundamental artistic value to

the national heritage that added, has become for the communities an educational resource.

SOS! works and collaborates with all the stakeholders each time involved in the preservation‟s

process. e.g. community groups, teachers, students, local authorities, state and local agencies,

civic or preservation organizations, etc.

Funding (and resources)

SOS! Save Outdoor Sculpture program is supported by:

Target Stores, National Endowment for the Arts, Pew Charitable Trusts, Getty Grant Program, and

Henry Luce Foundation.

Approach

SOS! program aims to enhance the local communities‟ interest and appreciation to local heritage,

in particular outdoor sculptures. People, in this way, are encouraged to look around and observe

their own heritage. SOS! educates people in giving a value to the heritage in open spaces, trying

to understand if the sculptures are in good condition or need to be restored. This is a good means

for a public motivation in the heritage care, consequently it gives instruments to develop technical

skills in the conservation‟s field.

42

The approach of the program has clearly a top-down characteristic. This initiative is nationwide and

has developed advices and instruments to the public involvement in the heritage conservation‟s

field with social and educational purpose.

SOS! program objectives.

- Bring the conservation‟s issue over the outdoor sculptures (in general about the art in public

spaces) in the public debate

- Raise public awareness for local heritage

- Foster collaborations between public and private sector in decision making

- Foster and encourage collaborations between professionals and local communities

- Engage volunteers as connectors of the above collaborations

SOS! program goals.

- Complete a National Inventory of outdoor sculptures with their basis assessment conditions

- Foster strategy of implementation in the outdoor sculptures‟ care

Method and strategy‟s points of the public involvement in the SOS! program.

- First raise awareness for local heritage (outdoor sculptures), and preservation‟s issue

through information, advices

- then research and evaluation of the local heritage (background, context, and artwork

characteristics) through practical tools, and consultations

- later taking care of it through the experts‟ support

- developing educational programs and initiatives for the local community

- updating and nourishing the SAAM National Inventories of American Painting Sculpture

database, helping to raise awareness on conservation

Here below are described the tools used by the organization to involve all the stakeholders, and so

the local community in the SOS! program, in order to let them be responsible in a practical and

conscious way to the heritage care.

1. Survey questionnaire

It is a detailed document where interested people are invited to describe the sculpture, its technical

characteristics and condition. Images, location, description, condition, opinion about the artwork,

and source materials are all points of analysis of the artwork. This questionnaire is a sort of study

about the object, a sort of theoretical preparation about the conservation‟s practice. The

information gathered is fundamental to support the organization‟s work of research,

documentation, and conservation of public outdoor sculptures. This contribution comes straight

from the public involvement in the process.

43

2. Planning guide

This guide has been thought for artists in order to create new outdoor sculptures long lasting as a

gift for the future. The guide is thought for maintaining the outdoor sculptures as well.

3. Conservation treatment notification report

This tool, thought for professionals, helps to keep updated the Smithsonian American Art

Museum‟s National Inventories of American Painting Sculpture database, and enhance its number

of artworks documented. Professionals are asked through this form to contribute to the

conservation‟s process with an assessment of the artwork and more information about it.

4. Volunteers handbook

It is a practical guide to involve volunteers from the artistic and cultural environment in the process

of research-documentation-assessment of the outdoor sculptures. This initiative is an opportunity

for the volunteers to learn and gain professional expertise in the artistic and conservation‟s ambit. It

is a practical tool to foster their awareness and enthusiasm for the program and contribute to

extend these feelings to the local community.

Considerations

Art in public spaces: it develops a sense of belonging, enhances people‟s awareness toward

heritage, empowers community‟s identity, contributes to maintain and increases the beauty of the

community‟s area.

According to my above consideration over the importance of the art in the public spaces as a

cultural and social instrument of the community‟s life improvement; I found very interesting the

straight and strong – organizational – approach to the outdoor sculptures‟ issue.

This program is very interesting for what concerns the public involvement to the heritage care

because has a strong educational purpose. Moreover is well organized, structured and is

nationwide.

Through the practical tools developed and the collaborations with experts, through the fundamental

bridge that represents the volunteers‟ figure; people are almost naturally addressed to the

program‟s involvement, and to the outdoor sculptures ri-discovery, knowledge and care.

This program through methods of involvement, captures community‟s attention and gently guides

them to approach with the themes of heritage and conservation. The result is a positive public

reaction, a good level of involvement and collaboration.

It is important to underline that not always there are bottom-up approaches and initiatives from the

community to take care of their own heritage. So it is important to have for example a well-

structured program of involvement that can engage the community from different perspectives, and

create social and cultural resources and opportunities.

Key point of public participation approach/strategy.

Role of volunteers as bridge between professionals and local communities, as connectors of

cultural/artistic and social/civic sphere.

They are involved in the documentation phase of the program. They start to get closer to

conservation‟s ambit in a professional way and know deeper about their own local heritage. With

44

their participation in the program they gain professional skills and awareness towards heritage care

that can transmit to the local community.

Benefits from the volunteers‟ work.

To the SOS! program (in a professional ambit)

- Information and documentation work that is important to nourish the Inventory of American

Sculpture database

- Research work that is important to keep update the Inventory database over assessment,

treatments‟ history, techniques utilized, and materials over the outdoor sculpture‟s

To the community (in a social ambit)

- Passion and awareness over local heritage - empower identity

- Knowledge about art in public space - educational purpose

- Collaboration between experts and community – social aim

- Encourage people‟s approach toward conservation field – professional aim

- Foster cultural activism, e.g. Adopt-A-Sculpture project - responsibility and ownership

Phases in the process of volunteers‟ involvement.

- Training sessions (lectures, workshops with experts - study and research, the handbook)

- Research (sculpture‟s background, historical and artistic neighborhood‟s context)

- Survey questionnaire (a practical tool to the sculpture‟s documentation and assessment)

- Inventory (compiling and sending: documents, survey, report and all the material about the

sculpture)

Success factors

1. Structured plan

SOS! program provides a really efficient and structured plan supported by practical tools,

information and advice that facilitated the process and the public involvement

2. Support

Both from community, e.g. volunteers, and professionals

3. Cooperation

Among the all stakeholders

4. Knowledge, expertise, experience

Professionals‟ support and work it is fundamental to the correct way of taking care of heritage

5. Volunteers

They are the bond between the institutions and the local communities. They are an added value

and support to the program. They bring personal expertise and experience to the program and gain

professional skills in the conservation‟s field

6. Funding

All the resources and funding that the program has acquired are an solid support to the program

development and its continuation

45

More info (and references)

http://www.heritagepreservation.org/ABOUTHP/info.htm

http://www.heritagepreservation.org/sos/index.html

http://www.heritagepreservation.org/sos/resources.html

http://www.heritagepreservation.org/sos/initiatives.html

http://americanart.si.edu/visit/about/

http://americanart.si.edu/research/programs/sos/

http://www.heritagepreservation.org/PROGRAMS/SOS/finding.html

http://collections.si.edu/search/results.htm?view=&dsort=&date.slider=&fq=object_type%3A%2

2Outdoor+sculpture%22&fq=data_source%3A%22Art+Inventories+Catalog%2C+Smithsonian

+American+Art+Museum%22&q=

http://www.heritagepreservation.org/PDFS/SOSRapidAssess.pdf

http://www.heritagepreservation.org/PDFS/Self-Assess2006.pdf

http://www.heritagepreservation.org/PDFS/SOSvolunteerHandboook.pdf

n. 8 - Rescue Public Murals initiative

Figure 10 - "Common Threads", Meg Saligman, 1998

Abstract

Rescue Public Murals (RPM) is an initiative of the nonprofit organization Heritage Preservation,

Washington DC, USA. RPM aims to bring attention on the community murals all around the United

States, document their unique history and heritage, raise awareness towards their significance,

and initiate and support efforts to save them.

46

Indicators

Location Washington, DC - United States of America

Dates 2006 - present (ongoing)

Status Initiative - Rescue Public Murals, USA

Aim Assessment, preservation, and restoration of community murals

Coordinator Heritage Preservation (till 2015)

Parties involved

Heritage Preservation, American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works of Art (AIC), ARTstor Digital Library, conservators, artists, local communities, local authorities, buildings owners, etc.

Area United States of America

Temporary/ permanent

Permanent

Preamble

About Heritage Preservation - The National Institute for Conservation, Washington, DC - USA

“Heritage Preservation is a mission-driven, independent, public policy organization dedicated to

preserving the cultural, historic, and scientific heritage of the United States. By identifying risks,

developing innovative programs, and providing broad public access to expert advice, Heritage

Preservation assists the museums, libraries, archives, organizations, and individuals that care for

our endangered heritage”. ( http://www.heritagepreservation.org/ABOUTHP/info.htm )

Heritage Preservation‟s mission:

“To preserve the nation’s heritage for future generations through innovative leadership, education,

and programs”. ( http://www.heritagepreservation.org/ABOUTHP/info.htm )

Background

Rescue Public Murals (RPM) initiative started in 2006 in response to a perceived need in the

conservation field. Its initiation followed upon a symposium called “The Mural in the Americas” in

2003 at the Getty Conservation Institute and the Getty Research Institute.

Initiative

The priority of RPM initiative is to raise awareness, document and restore outdoor public murals,

because of their vulnerability due to the climate conditions and the risks of vandalism.

The initiative, started in 2006, it is assisted by a national committees of advisers and has initiated

several projects like:

- Assessments

RPM brought conservators and artists together in a productive collaboration to evaluate the

conditions of 16 murals in 11 sites in US. The “assessment team” documented the process of

evaluation in order to be useful to the preservation of these and other murals.

- Restoration

In 2007 RPM assessed “Homage to Seurat: La Grande Jatte in Harlem”. This mural of the

late period of the artist Eva Cockcroft, is the only remaining in New York city. She was in the

47

National community of murals movement. In 2009, thanks to the Friends of Heritage

Preservation‟s support the mural was fully restored.

In 2009 RPM assessed “Common Threads” of the artist Meg Saligman. This mural is in

Philadelphia and although was painted in 1998 was extremely fading. Thanks to the support

and fundraising of Murals Arts Program the mural was partially restored and in 2011 its

restoration had been continued.

- Best practices for mural creations

This project has been developed in order to identify techniques and materials to ensure long

lasting future outdoor murals. The project is a collaboration among artists, conservators,

conservation researchers, paint manufacturers, and public arts programs.

Working to preserve outdoor murals, conservators identified several issues that if faced,

mitigated, and prevented can guarantee long lasting to the future murals.

RPM has developed a program of conversations and brainstorming sessions with all the

experts in the field of murals. These meetings raised questions and issues regarding the

creation and maintenance of an outdoor mural in order to prolong at maximum its life and its

beauty. The results of this collaboration have been a series of recommendations for all

stakeholders involved from the phase of creation till the maintenance.

The process should follow these steps: planning, preparation, execution, maintenance. Each

step is supported by technical recommendations, key tips, and advices by all experts

involved.

- Advocacy

RPM encourages awareness towards outdoor public murals in US. They are part of the

community life and history, and they enliven the communities surroundings.

Thanks to RPM new programs and initiatives over public murals have been developed all

around the US. They have been murals in the news and the same RPM initiative encourages

communities, experts, and artists to get involved.

- Documentation

Conserving is also preserve the murals' memory that can be lost during the time. Murals are

really vulnerable due to the weather conditions, temperature, vandalism, and the same

artworks span life. It is important to preserve them also digitally.

RPM has a partnership with ARTstor Digital Library in order to document murals all around

US, saving images and information about that. This initiative aims to develop a digital

archive, free accessible, for non-commercial and educational purposes.

Co-chairs of the Rescue Public Murals initiative.

- Dr. Timothy W. Drescher, independent scholar, former co-editor of Community Murals

magazine of Berkeley, California

- Will Shank, independent conservator and curator, Barcelona, Spain. He is the former head of

conservation of San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (1990-2000). In 2005 he won the

Rome Prize for Conservation/Historic Preservation at the American Academy in Rome

48

RPM‟s current situation and development.

The rescue‟s initiative promoted and supported by RMP were enormously successful and got the

attention, interest, and participation of local communities. Collaboration between experts and

communities helped to increase awareness towards community murals heritage.

This year Heritage Preservation will close. RPM will have a new life, its content will reside with the

American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works of Art (AIC) in Washington, DC.

RPM team will continue to develop the Best Practices advices. They will work with organizations

like Voices of Contemporary Art and the Foundation of the American Institute for Conservation in

order to create collaborations between artists and conservators. The local communities will be

further involved in the initiative‟s development.

Rescue Public Murals will be modeled on Save Outdoor Sculpture (SOS!), an awarded program of

the Heritage Preservation.

Quoting the president of Heritage Preservation, Lawrence L. Reger:

“SOS! taught us that documenting public art is a vital step in ensuring its property, long-term care.

With heightened public awareness, these treasures of our community life were preserved for future

generations. We look forward to having the same success with public murals”.

( http://www.heritagepreservation.org/RPM/newsmore.html )

Funding (and resources)

Rescue Public Murals has received funding from:

The Getty Foundation, the National Endowment for the Arts, the Booth Heritage Foundation,

Friends of Heritage Preservation, and Wyeth Foundation for American Art.

Local funding for preservation have been identified also by the communities whose murals are

endangered.

Approach

The approach of the different projects around the RPM initiative had usually a bottom-up approach.

These projects were self-identifying at the local level.

Local committees were established in order to identifying an important community mural, raise

awareness around its significance and importance to conserve it, and organize fund raising.

The initiative has been fostered by the motivation of the local communities to save murals that

represent an important aspect of their social life, their history and their link with the neighborhood.

Local residents role

- Practical level: researching over the murals history, from their creation till their maintenance

- Social level: gathering information over the cultural impact of the murals for the local

community

Experts role

- Conservators play the role of coordinators of the preservation activities. They work with

member of local community, including artists, in order to restore and conserve the murals

There are three actions by the Rescue Public Murals initiative that have been developed in order to

involve all the stakeholders and local communities in the public murals‟ rescue:

49

- Recommend Murals

It is an initiative addressed to everybody, interested citizens as well to recommend to RPM

project significant murals in their community. This initiative is important for RPM to raise

awareness and funding, and conduct assessment for future public murals.

- Submit Murals Images

Addressed to artists and art organizations. The initiative aims to collect, document and

record murals all around US. This initiative has an educational aim and it is important to

preserve the murals memory in the future due to the vulnerability of the artworks, above all

outsides works. The images are collected in the RPM collection of the ARTstor Digital

Library. The ARTstor aims to collect and give free access to the murals collection in the all

US. Till now the library has collected more than 5.000 photographs of murals in the

Community Murals collection.

- Join the Mailing List

All the stakeholders and citizens interested are invited to sign up the mailing list to receive

news and updates about RPM projects.

- Become a Heritage Preservation member and a Preservation partner

In order to support the organization economically, and draw benefits from that.

Phases of RPM initiative process.

- 2006: RPM (a national project to save outdoor public murals in US) launched an initiative to

collect information of important outdoor murals in deteriorating conditions.

This initiative was addressed to artists, conservators, citizens interested, art organizations,

municipalities, etc.

All the stakeholders were invited to submit the information regarding the murals in non good

conditions.

From their recommendations and documentations, experts have been able to assess the

murals, give advices, and raise awareness and funding in supporting murals‟ care and

preservation.

- 2007: RPM has selected 10 murals in deteriorating conditions, gave in-depth assessment by

the “assessment team” and started finding support, funding and public debate in order to

foster the murals‟ restoration process.

Finally it is possible to consider the approach of RPM mixed. The national initiative comes from the

organization. RPM took the action to save outdoor murals all around the US. So originally the

initiative has a top-down approach, moreover it is supported by tools and experts‟ advices in order

to develop specific initiatives to raise awareness and save specific murals. The concrete projects

developed to save community murals, started usually from bottom-up initiatives and they have

been supported by RPM organization, through their experts and tools. This collaboration, and

mixed approach (we could say mutual initiative) created a mutual support that has increased the

efforts in saving murals, has fostered the awareness around their importance, and the opportunity

of fundraising.

50

Considerations

There are 2 factors that have contributed to the success of the RPM initiative:

- The first is the local communities‟ link with the public murals. This cultural and social

connection, this bond toward what represent a context and background, made easier the

process of public involvement and awareness over the artistic and social importance of the

murals in order to save them.

- The second is the work of professionals in collaborating with all the stakeholders in

informing, advising and saving communities murals. They create a sort of horizontal

connections that have been useful to raise awareness, resources and money. And like a

mutual support the local community helped in the same way. Moreover professionals

created, through public brainstorming and meetings, useful tools for artists and for the long

lasting of their future murals creations.

The initiative RPM is inspired to SOS! program. Like the SOS! program, RPM is a well structured

initiative that through its practical tools and advices makes easier the public involvement and

initiative.

Success factors

1. Communities‟ involvement

According to Will Shank, co-chair of RPM, the community involvement is the key of the initiative

success.

Enlarge the restoration objective, enriching with a social aim will give more completeness to the

project. Local communities are a resource, they bring a historical and social point of view to the

artistic sphere. Their involvement is essential to the projects‟ success

2. Motivation

People‟s motivation in saving their community murals has been the engine of the projects.

Motivation creates support and connections that are helpful to bring in professional resources,

experiences, cultural and economic means

3. Professionals

The work of the professionals has been essential to raise awareness in all the stakeholders

towards the importance of saving the murals. Their work of conservation has been fundamental to

achieve the project‟s goal. They have been the bond between the organization and communities

4. Collaboration

The collaboration that has been created among the stakeholders, above all between experts and

community is been a strong success factor. Collaborations created support, produced resources,

enhanced awareness and interest toward the specific projects

5. Structured plan

Like the SOS! program, the RPM initiative provides a really efficient and structured plan supported

by practical tools, information and advice that facilitated the process and the public involvement

6. Funding

51

All the resources and funding that the program has acquired are a solid support to the program

development and its continuation

More info (and references)

http://www.heritagepreservation.org/ABOUTHP/info.htm

http://www.heritagepreservation.org/RPM/

http://www.heritagepreservation.org/RPM/about.html

http://www.heritagepreservation.org/RPM/newsmore.html

http://www.heritagepreservation.org/RPM/atrisk.html

http://www.heritagepreservation.org/RPM/MuralBestPractices.html

http://www.heritagepreservation.org/RPM/involved.html

http://www.heritagepreservation.org/RPM/saved.html

http://www.heritagepreservation.org/RPM/archive6.html

http://www.heritagepreservation.org/RPM/news.html

Interview Rescue Public Murals initiative - appendix

n. 9 - Preservation of Outdoor Painted Sculpture in Québec

Figure 11 - example of outdoor sculpture restoration

Abstract

Preservation of Outdoor Painted Sculpture is a project of the Centre de Conservation du Québec

(CCQ) that develops strategies and tools to support the preventive conservation, maintenance and

conservation treatments of the public art in Québec.

52

Indicators

Location 1825, rue Semple, Québec (Québec) G1N 4B7 - Canada

Dates 2009 - present (ongoing)

Status Project - Preservation of Outdoor Painted Sculpture in Québec

Aim Promote and support the preventive conservation, maintenance and conservation treatments of public art

Coordinator Centre de Conservation du Québec (CCQ)

Parties involved

Centre de Conservation du Québec (CCQ), Ministére de la Culture et des Communications (MCC), conservators, artists, municipalities, municipal employees, artworks‟ owners, and other stakeholders in the artworks

Area Québec provinces - Canada

Temporary/ permanent

Permanent

Preamble

About the Centre de Conservation du Québec (CCQ)

The Centre de Conservation du Québec (CCQ) was founded in 1979. It is a provincially funded

conservation centre that is connected with the Québec Ministry of Culture and Communications

(MCC). Its mission is to preserve and conserve Québec‟s cultural heritage. The CCQ is composed

of a large team of professionals from different sectors in the conservation field. It has a wide range

of clients like museums, cultural institutions, municipalities, privates, etc. This centre offers a wide

range of professional services as well, like expert consultations, collection surveys, restoration

treatments, educational programs, etc.

The CCQ has focused, for several years, on the preservation of outdoor painted sculpture of the

Québec‟s provinces developing a series of strategies, practical tools and programs to motivate,

involve and train different stakeholders to the preventive conservation of public art. This project has

been developed due to the overwhelming demand, from CCQ clients, for technical information, and

in order to raise awareness about the preventive conservation practice.

In order to understand why there is this a so high demand of technical information and need of

conservation of the outdoor sculptures in Québec, it is necessary to briefly introduce the situation

of public art during the sixties in those sites.

Background

Since the sixties more than 1300 sculptures have been installed in public spaces of the different

provinces of Québec. This enormous amount of outdoor sculptures in Québec is due the “Politique

du 1%”. Just like in The Netherlands after World War 2, the provincial government in 1961

implemented a policy to integrate art in public buildings in order to develop a different and nicer

atmosphere in the cities, and get people closer to artworks. So for each building that was

constructed in that period the 1% of the budget should be addressed to the production of artworks

linked with the concept of the building and the surrounding. That‟s why there is such a high number

of building reliefs or sculptures in the public spaces. This policy is still in effect. In Québec the art in

public spaces was incentivized also by the Universal Exposition of Montreal of 1967 (Expo 67).

After more than 40 years the sculptures need attention and conservation treatments, they need

that experts take care of them to preserve their beauty and their significance for the local

53

communities for the future generations. The point is that the number of outdoor sculptures is very

high, the local governments‟ budget is limited like the conservators‟ availability. It is impossible that

conservators can intervene on each artwork and that can have money that cover the conservation

treatment costs of the all outdoor sculptures in the area.

For these reasons is important to find strategies and tools that can permit to act in a wider scale

and develop mechanisms of preventive conservation in order to maintain longer the wellness of the

sculptures and avoid the expensive conservation treatment costs. It is also fundamental to involve

the public in the preventive conservation process. Those are the motivations that brought the CCQ

to develop the project “Preservation of Outdoor Painted Sculpture”.

Project

The project “Preservation of Outdoor Painted Sculpture” (POPS) is included in a larger movement

within Canada of taking care of public art through preventive conservation, maintenance and

conservation treatments.

During the years the demand of technical information about the public art maintenance from local

municipalities increased. In order to give professional support and get the public involved to the

preventive conservation process, the CCQ developed and started in 2009 the project POPS.

Through tools, advice, experts‟ support, pilot programs, etc.; the project aims to raise awareness to

the cultural and social importance of art in public space, and develop strategies and tools to take

care of it.

This project and its instruments is addressed to all the stakeholders involved in the process of

preventive conservation of outdoor sculptures, like: collection managers, municipalities, artists,

conservators, municipal employees, etc.

Project‟s aims.

- Foster awareness toward art in public spaces and its conservation

- Develop a sense of cultural ownership toward public art empowering the stakeholders

involved

- Promote and support preventive conservation practice

- Support the preventive conservation process through experts‟ work, guidelines, practical

tools, programs and cooperation

- Encourage public involvement, through safe instruments like professionals tools and

consultations

- Feed and stimulate collaborations among different stakeholders

- Avoid expensive conservation treatments and prolong the artworks‟ life with preventive

conservation

- Take care of local heritage and its environment

Project‟s results.

The project is ongoing and successful. Since 2009 the CCQ has achieved the following results.

- Intervened with 62 municipalities in Québec

- Provided more than 9.200 hours of service

- Offered consulting service (57%), training service (12%) and conservation treatments (30%)

- In result with the collaboration with CCQ for the project POPS, different municipalities have

implemented preventive conservation strategies and changing their maintenance procedures

54

- In result with the collaboration with CCQ for the project POPS, municipalities have increased

investments in the cultural and heritage‟s field, the use of CCQ services has increased as

well

- In result with the collaboration with CCQ for the project POPS, thanks to presentations and

hours of consultation and training services, municipal employees become more conscious

and proud over the importance of preserving public art

- In result with the collaboration with CCQ for the project POPS, artists are actively utilizing

tools and technical advices develop by CCQ for their current artworks

- Collaborations between conservators and artists has reduced long-term problems of

conservation regarding art in public spaces

- Artists reacted very positively to the “best practices” input developed by CCQ, they gained

technical knowledge as well

- The demand from the CCQ‟s clients for support of advices for artworks‟ conservation is

increased and has time shorter. This is positive in matter of prevention and lower the costs of

conservation treatments

Project‟s development.

The preservation of public art follows good conservation practices. The project is in development.

The CCQ is responsible for one of the actions that are taken “Plan d‟action ministerial de

développement durable” for 2013-2015, at the MCC. The tools, programs, and instruments

developed by CCQ provide support to communities approaching with development, preventive

conservation, and conservation of cultural heritage. It was recommended to extend this plan for

2015-2020.

Funding (and resources)

The project is funded partly by the provincial government of Québec and partly by services fee paid

for the clients of CCQ.

Approach

The project is not addressed directly to local residents. Until now there have been no volunteers

involved in the project. The project is geared to all the people involved in the process of preventive

conservation of public art. The stakeholders whom the project is addressed to are: collections

managers, artists, local municipalities, municipal employees, conservators, artworks‟ owners,

architects, etc. Those are part of the community as well of course but directly involved in the

process. So the project is meant for the public involvement.

The approach of POPS is a top-down initiative. The CCQ developed a strategy and tools in order

to foster, support and increase the public involvement to the public art care and the preventive

conservation practice.

Each local project supported by the POPS is identified to a local level. The initiative to ask

information, advices, and eventually support for art in public spaces comes from the local

municipality, they identify the outdoor sculptures that need attention and conservation. After their

request comes the support of CCQ organization.

So the project drew the basis to foster and enhance public awareness towards the issue of

preventive conservation, it fosters , through information, awareness toward public local heritage. In

55

this way and with these inputs people are naturally stimulated to take initiative and being involved

into the process. The collaboration between stakeholders and experts it is fundamental to build

horizontal connection and collaboration in order to achieve the project‟s goal.

Projects‟ instruments and resources.

Survey papers, evaluation forms, and informal communications has been produced to establish the

status of the outdoor sculptures in Québec and test the level of participation and awareness of the

different stakeholders to the preventive conservation process. The CCQ wrote a public, free and

downloadable guide to the public art, as a practical tool, accessible to everyone and useful to

understand how to approach the practice preventive conservation and in general to the public art.

The CCQ gives also the possibilities of free consultations with experts in matter of conservation, for

the different phases of the process, and the different parties involved. Pilot programs and training

programs have been developed to put in practice the strategy of public participation to the

preventive conservation of outdoor sculptures. At the end of each pilot program pros and cons

have been analyzed, successes and risks of the public involvement in order to optimize the

process for future programs.

Guide pour la conservation des oeuvres d‟art public.

This guide on public art, is a practical tool, free and downloadable that is addressed to artists,

artworks‟ owners, collectors, public involved in the artworks‟ maintenance, authorities, etc.

In the guide there are all the aspects of the public art from the conception till the installation, from

the conditions report till the maintenance. The guide offers information, recommendations and

advices; all the guidelines are easy to follow, well explained and directly applicable for the

preventive conservation of the outdoor sculptures.

Pilot programs.

Since 2009 seven pilot programs have been developed among the municipalities of Trois-Rivieres,

Sherbrooke, Saguenay, Gatineau, Victoriaville, and Chaudiere-Appalaches and Abitibi-

Temiscamingue regions. These pilot programs concern the collaboration between municipalities

and CCQ, artists and CCQ in order to sensitize, foster and develop plan to the preventive

conservation of public art. Each pilot program includes 100 hour of conservation services carried

out by CCQ experts, and training seminars for municipal employees.

The conservation services consist of collection surveys of the sculptures that have to be preserved,

a list of priority global treatments, maintenance schedule, a scheme of simple tasks for the

municipal employees, sample maintenance log sheet.

During the hours of training seminars municipal employees are prepared by the CCQ experts to

the basic rules for the maintenance and status report of the sculptures that they have to take care

of.

Case study of Longueuil (as example of project‟s approach and process).

In 2012 the municipality hired the CCQ to establish a pilot program of preventive conservation of

the outdoor sculptures of the city. The municipality chose 19 sculptures to conserve. The CCQ

made a survey of condition of the sculptures, then started with some conservation treatments, and

thanks to careful documentation, brought the original color back of the sculptures that were

painted. Finally a program of maintenance procedures has been promoted in collaboration with the

municipality.

56

Resuming (tools and their function).

- Surveys, evaluation forms (research over public motivations and opinions)

- Information and communication (instruments to raise awareness and interest to the project)

- Guide (instrument of public participation)

- Pilot programs (instruments of public participation)

- Consultation hours service (instrument of public participation)

- Training hours service (instrument of public participation)

- Assessment process (experts‟ support and work)

- Conservation treatments (experts‟ support and work)

- Maintenance plan (experts‟ support, stakeholders collaboration)

- Analysis of successes and risks (instrument of considerations for improvement)

Phases of the projects‟ process linked to the public involvement.

- Researching and analyzing the condition of public art

- Sensitizing and stimulating the public interest and involvement in the preventive conservation

of public art and in the “encounter” with the public art in general

- Information and communication, experts advices and recommendations

- Establishing strategy to implement the preventive conservation of public art

- Creation of practical tools, guidelines, programs, trainings and consultations

- Collaboration among experts, artists, municipalities, and municipal employees

- Final analysis over the strategies and initiatives adopted.

Considerations

POPS project drew inspiration by the Heritage Preservation program SOS! Save Outdoor

Sculpture.

About the practical tools and strategy of public involvement developed for the project.

The initiative of collaboration between artists and conservators are devised to let the artist create

something that can be long-lasting, and can pros extend the need of conservations. On the other

hand the conservators, thanks to this collaboration, are fostered to understand the concept behind

the artwork, its essence trying to balance the artist‟s choice with the artwork‟s long-lasting qualities.

Collaborations among municipalities and conservators are developed in order to encourage the

authorities to invest in the preventive conservation and implement strategies for public art

maintenance programs.

Having free access to the practical tools developed by the CCQ is a smart and democratic

instruments to sensitize and stimulate public involvement in the preventive conservation process.

Moreover the web-based tools are simple and easy to apply and this is an advantage for the users

but also a positive strategy to reduce risks of inappropriate maintenance.

Communication and exchange have been the central points of the project, this mutual support

helped to the successful results of each local project in a practical but also social way.

Over the risks of non-experts involvement.

At the end of each pilot program the CCQ made a sort of analysis about the effectiveness of the

methods adopted to the preventive conservation of the outdoor sculpture and above all over the

involvement of non-experts in the conservation procedures. The results have been quite satisfying

57

because the level of appreciation of the stakeholders about the program was high. Both artists,

authorities, and employees found the program useful, effective and productive. They were satisfied

with the collaboration with the experts, finding it very useful, indeed the request of CCQ support

has never decreased. The program has generated amongst the different stakeholders more sense

of ownership and awareness toward public art. The risks linked to the non-expert maintenance

thanks to the consultations, the trainings, and the guide were reduced, and with those the risks of

vandalism. The results were very positive both in a cultural - social sphere and in the technical

conservation ambit.

Quoting in the Guide de conservation des oeuvre d‟art public:

“une sensibilization et une éducation de la population á l’importance de la présence de l’art dans

son environment son les meilleurs moyen de faire aimer les oeuvres, de les faire respecter et de

les protéger du vandalism. La création d’un climat favorable á la réception d’une oeuvre d’art

public est toujours gagnante auprés de la population”.

(“Awareness and education of the population toward the importance of the presence of art in the

environment is the best way to enjoy artworks, in order to respect and protect them against

vandalism. The creation of a favorable climate of reception of public art is always positive within

the population”).

(CCQ: 2015, 18)

Success factors

1. Collaboration

As I mentioned before collaboration among all stakeholders, above all the cooperation built

between artists and conservators and also organization and municipalities has been a strong

success factor. Horizontal connections enhance interest and relationships that are useful to the

projects‟ development, to bring in knowledge, new initiatives, different points of view, various

experiences, human and financial resources

2. Communication

A well-structured project and well communicated is a solid support to its development, in particular

to stimulate the public involvement and interest toward the process. A good communication within

the process helps to minimize misunderstandings and optimize all the resources available

3. Support

The experts‟ support in matter of hours of consultation and training has been really important to

involve other stakeholders in a so technical field and address them in a proper way of taking care

of public art

4. Knowledge, expertise, experience

Bring knowledge, expertise and experience in a project is always productive for a better

development of the project. All the stakeholders brought their contribute to the cultural and social

enrichment of the same project.

5. Web-based tools

As I already mentioned the online-tools have been essential to a transparent, democratic, and easy

public involvement in the preventive conservation practice. Having constantly and free access to

58

expert tools, developed in a practical and easy to understand way, is a success factors for a good

project‟s realization

6. Funding

Having funding from provincial government it is a solid support to the project‟s realization. Having a

solid support is in itself already a factor of success. Moreover the good results of the POPS have

increased and incentivized the funding from local municipality to be addressed to preventive

conservation of local public art.

More info (and references)

http://www.mcc.gouv.qc.ca/

http://www.ccq.gouv.qc.ca/index.php?id=71

http://www.ccq.gouv.qc.ca/index.php?id=26

Gagné Stéphanie and Monique Benoit. Preservation of Outdoor Painted Sculpture.

Proceedings from the Interim Meeting of the Modern Material and Contemporary Art Working

Group of ICOM-CC. Otterlo, 4-5 June 2013. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute.

p.131-138. Print

CCQ. Guide de conservation des oeuvres d’art public. Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du

Québec, 2015. p. 1-30. Print

Interview Preservation of Outdoor Painted Sculpture in Québec – appendix

n. 10 - Heritage Lottery Fund projects

Abstract

Here below are described three projects funded and promoted by the organization Heritage Lottery

Fund of United Kingdom. These three projects represent three examples of public participation in

the tangible – intangible-natural heritage conservation field.

Preamble

About Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) organization

The Heritage Lottery Fund was established in UK under the National Lottery Act in 1993, it was

opened for applications in 1994. The headquarter is in London.

Vision and mission.

“From the archaeology under our feet to the historic parks we love, from precious memories to rare

wildlife… we use money raised by National Lottery players to help people across the UK explore,

enjoy and protect the heritage they care about”.

( http://www.hlf.org.uk/about-us#.VaU9WLUt18E )

Why protecting Heritage for the future of everyone? (organization‟s motivations)

- Roots of our identities

- Quality of our lives

59

- Inspire pride of communities

- Core of the tourism industry

- Investment in local communities

- Create job positions

Heritage Lottery Fund strategy plan (2013-2019).

“Shaping the future ofHeritage for everyone!”

Approach (methodology).

1. HLF‟s initiative to know more about public opinion, trying to develop participation strategies

through people support.

2. Public survey over the HLF‟s strategy plan.

3. Questions: 2 types

- About the strategic framework, new programs, and opportunities

- General question over people approach towards Heritage

4. Results

- High level of participation of local residents

- Positive results (people approved the approach of HLF and its strategic plan)

The public survey.

Gareth Maeer, Head of Research and Evaluation at the HLF, made a public survey over the main

theme of research of the HLF‟s 20Years in 12 places: How heritage connects to local quality of life.

The survey involved local residents for more than 4.000 people across 12 locations, with a

discussion group among local residents in 6 of 12 locations.

Survey‟s findings.

- People relate to heritage in a complex way

- People are aware about the public funding for heritage, they want some practical benefits in

return

- Cultural benefits: e.g. a nice day out, an educational plus enjoyable experience

- Economic benefits: enhance tourism, foster local economy, create job positions

- Emotional connections: heritage helps people to understand themselves and their

community, above all for small projects of local areas

- 80% of local residents think that heritage makes their areas a better place to live

- 64% of local residents think that heritage has improved in the recent years

- 69% of local residents think that funding for heritage projects in their areas has been a good

use of money

- People have a clear idea how money should be spent for heritage projects

- People want that heritage projects should conserve the value of the past but also they want

that it should be provided ways of public involvement

- 69% of local residents were positive about the impact of natural heritage sites(parks)on their

quality of life

- 61% of local residents were positive about the impact of cultural heritage areas(museums)

on their quality of life

- 96% of people were aware of the museum projects funded by HLF in their town or city and

84% visited them

( http://www.museumsassociation.org/museums-journal/comment/01042015-comment11 )

60

Projects (overview)

Here below are described three projects funded by Heritage Lottery Fund organization, all of them

in UK. They represent three examples (in order) of public participation in the tangible – intangible –

natural heritage conservation field.

1 - Sandford Heritage and Community Project

Figure 12 - St. Swithun's Church, Sandford

Indicators

Location Mid Devon - South West - UK

Date 03/12/2008

HLF funding £ 44,000

Status St. Swithun‟s Church, Sandford

Aim The children‟s bench end design has been carved and can now to be seen in the church

Parties involved Sandford Parish Church Council, Sandford Heritage Group, HLF, local community, volunteers

Described by HLF website, projects section

Temporary/ permanent

Permanent

Project

The restoration of the gallery of the St. Swithun‟s Church in Sandford represents a project that

brings together the initiative to take care of local heritage and of the social development of the local

community of Sandford.

The Parish Church Council in collaboration with the Sandford Heritage Group, in promoting the

restoration of the church‟s gallery, they converted it in a community room in which develop

activities, meetings, workshops, and a research centre in order to enhance and stimulate local

community‟s awareness toward their heritage. The church‟s gallery restored and the new

community space created aim to foster the cultural and social life of the local community.

Professional objectives and results.

61

- Wooden carved columns of the church, hidden by Victorian alteration are conserved and on

public display

- Two new books on farming heritage have been produced by Sandford Heritage Group

- Research on bench ends by volunteers

- Research on tree-ring dating by expert

Community motivation and results.

- Local people: knowledge and awareness about local heritage

- Volunteers: (more then 40) gained skills in digital archiving, recording and interviewing

techniques

- Workshops: pew making, carving and photography

- Trainings: collaboration between experts, Sandford Heritage Group in order to train the

volunteers and involve the community in the project

- School programs

- Evenings talk: 4 times a year to know more about the local heritage and the Church‟s history

Funding (and resources)

This project has been funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund.

Approach

The approach to the gallery‟s restoration comes from a bottom-up initiative that is identified to a

local level. The main motivation to the church‟s restoration and conservation is linked to the re-

discovery of the community‟s heritage. The conservation treatments apart the artistic motivation

aim to revitalize that space in order to create more social and cultural opportunities.

The public involvement has been fundamental to the project‟s objective.

Strategy of public participation in the project.

- Strong social motivation

Church as cultural and social centre of the community‟s life

- Technical involvement

Experts helped volunteers to gain technical skills in the conservation field and this fostered

the public participation and motivation in the heritage care

Phases of community‟s engagement.

1. Church restoration as initial and motivating point for the community and not for the

experts‟ final result

2. Foster the social and cultural daily life of the community, develop activities

3. People were motivated and interested in the project

4. People have been involved by expert to participate actively in the project

5. Volunteers have been trained by expert in acquiring and developing skills in the

conservation field

6. Active, positive and productive public participation

7. Church restoration

8. People gained knowledge and awareness about local heritage, they gained technical and

professional skills

62

9. People continues to be engaged with social and cultural activities linked to the project

Considerations

It is really interesting the scope of the all project of restoration, revitalize the social life of a little

community. Moreover the project aims to foster people‟s awareness and interest toward the history

of the church, the practice of conservation, and the study of the materials.

This project has been really interesting for the way of approaching to the public involvement and

because links the importance of empower the local community enriching their awareness toward

their heritage.

The figure of volunteers, trained by experts in supporting the conservation process it is an

interesting point of observation as well. They gained technical skills in the field of conservation,

they were supported and guided by experts, they enriched their knowledge through research and

documentation. They have been the bridge and the point of communication between the

community and the experts. In this way they were able to involve the rest of the community in the

project.

Success factors

1. Collaboration and support

Nice cooperation and mutual support between experts and community has been created. Moreover

the collaboration between the PCC and the Sandford Heritage Group permitted to stimulated social

and cultural motivations linked to the project. The project, rediscovering the local heritage

significance, produced different initiatives that revitalized the social life of the community.

2. Volunteers

They have been the success factor of the projects. They were a strong support for the research‟s

and documentation‟s activity. They were the connectors between the experts and the community

and this has facilitated the cooperation and the project‟s development.

3. Knowledge, expertise, experience

The role of professionals has been important to bring knowledge and expertise useful to guide the

volunteers in supporting the project. Professionals doing their job have enhanced the importance of

the Sandford local heritage that has stimulated the local residents in participating in the project and

develop further initiatives around that.

4. Funding

This project has been funded by HLF that means a solid support to the project‟s development.

63

2- Bedford Physical Training College Stories, World War 1 and 2

Figure 13 - picture from the archive of BPEOSA association

Indicators

Location Bedford, East England - UK

Date 18/10/2012

HLF funding £ 10,000

Status Bedford Physical Training College

Aim Bedford College stories, World War 1. Enrich the archive by collecting documentation and stories whereby preserving local memories for future generations.

Parties involved Bedford College of Physical Education old students‟ association(BPEOSA), HLF, volunteers, local community

Described by HLF website, projects section

Temporary/ permanent

Permanent

Project

Bedford Physical Education Old Students‟ Association (BPEOSA) started a project to enrich its

archive researching over the role of the Physical Education College during WW1 and WW2. This

work of research involved a core group of volunteers, former students of the college, experts, local

historians, and the local community.

The project of documentation of the stories around the college and its role during the WW1 aims to

collect and preserve local memories for the future generations.

A lot of data and stories have been gathered thanks to the work and motivation of everybody and

from that work has been realized a film. This has enriched the association archive but also the

local community in preserving their memories.

64

This project has been a nice work of collaboration and participation, underlined by a common and

emotional motivation. In future a similar project will be developed about the stories and the role of

the college during the WW2.

Professional objectives and results.

- History of Bedford College of Physical Training has been researched and interpreted

- Conservation and preservation of social and cultural history of Bedford College

- Realization of a documentary film; audios, photographs and interviews to the Bedford

College former students

- The archive of the organization has been enriched with the work of collecting and preserving

oral stories (documents, photographs, interviews, film)

- The organization profile has been raised

Community motivation and results.

- Volunteers: learned skills over film making and oral stories undertaking. They were involved

in the film realization and in the DVD launching

- Local people: involved in interviews, their personal memories have been valued. They have

been engaged in telling different aspects of the WW1. They know more about the history of

the college above all with the final result: the DVD

- Knowledge and awareness about their history and local heritage

- Work of preservation of something that could have been lost

Funding (and resources)

This project has been funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund.

Approach

This project followed a bottom-up approach, is identified to a local level and comes from the

BPEOSA association‟s initiative.

The interesting point of this approach has been the subject of the project or better the subject of

the research: common memories. They permitted to establish strong and productive collaborations

between the volunteers, other organizations, experts and the local community. So the common

support to the initiative has developed a network of horizontal connections and a productive work

that has stimulated and fostered the public participation.

All the stakeholders have taken part to the project‟s process contributing with different role:

documentation, witnessing, record, interviews, etc.

Strategy of public participation in the project.

- Strong historical/emotional motivation

Personal memories and difficult heritage were the engine for the people‟s motivation to the

project‟s participation

65

- Technical involvement

Experts helped people to gain technical skills in the documentation field and this fostered the

public participation and motivation to the project‟s development

Phases of community‟s engagement.

1. Bedford College stories as historical and emotional element of public motivation

2. Engage people in historical and social research about the project subject

3. Collaboration between experts and community in develop the project

4. Volunteers involved in interviews and documentation‟s work

5. Volunteers have been trained by expert in acquiring and developing skills in the

documentation field

6. Active, positive and productive public participation

7. Realization and launch of a DVD about Bedford College stories

8. Enrichment of the organization‟s archive

9. People gained knowledge and awareness about local heritage, they gained technical and

professional skills

10. People continues to be engaged with social and cultural activities linked to the project

(BPEOSA association and website), e.g. extend the project to the WW2 period

Considerations

Take care of intangible heritage means making all the efforts possible to document and remember

this heritage transforming in a tangible product that could be accessible to everybody in order to

preserve its significance for the future. The work of research, interview, witnessing, documentation

and archiving has been in a certain way a work of restoration and conservation of local and

historical memories.

Once again the role of volunteers has been fundamental for the project‟s realization. They have

been also in this case, like in Sandford‟s project, a bridge between the association – the experts

and the rest of the community. Their work has been essential to connect people with the

association and involve them in the process of documentation. They helped the association telling

their stories about the college and WW1 period.

Another interesting aspect of the role of the volunteers is that the experts trained them in the field

of documentation. In this way volunteers have been not only connectors between organization and

community but also they gained professional skills that in the future they could use in the

professional field.

This project that linked so strongly the common interest, enhanced the community awareness

through their local history and heritage. In this way, remembering and preserving their memories,

they were taking care of themselves and their heritage. It has been a nice work of collaboration.

Intangible heritage has a strong emotional factor, connects more people and let them participating

actively and with motivation.

Success factors

1. Collaboration and support

66

It has been created a nice cooperation and mutual support between experts and community,

BPEOSA and all the stakeholders involved. This collaboration permitted to stimulate social and

cultural motivations linked to the project. The project, rediscovering and preserving the local

heritage significance, and the collective memories has produced different initiatives that have

revitalized the social life of the community.

2. Volunteers

They have been the success factor of the project. They have been a strong support for the

research and documentation. They were the connectors between the experts and the community

and this has facilitated the cooperation and the project‟s development.

3. Knowledge, expertise, experience

The role of professionals have been important to bring knowledge and expertise useful to guide the

volunteers in supporting the project. Professionals doing their job have enhanced the importance of

the College‟s heritage that has stimulated the local residents in participating and develop further

initiatives around that.

4. Intangible heritage

Intangible heritage as a strong emotional factor that enhances people interest in participating in a

project. Taking care and gathering collective memories is a stimulating factor of a natural people‟s

engagement.

5. Funding

This project has been funded by HLF that means a solid support to the project‟s development.

3 - Burslem, Burslem Park

Figure 14 - Burslem park view

67

Indicators

Location Stoke-on-Trent, West Midlands - UK

Date 07/10/2008

HLF funding £ 2,194,000

Status Burslem park

Aim Restore Burslem park‟s heritage and wildlife

Parties involved Stoke-on-Trent City Council, Friends of Burslem Prak group, HLF, volunteers

Described by HLF website, projects section

Temporary/ permanent

Permanent

Project

Burslem Park has been designed by Thomas Mawson, it is considered one of the best example of

Mawson‟s early work. This park is considered one of the largest registered Victorian Park of UK,

and it is located 400 meters from Burslem centrum.

Its project of restoration has been led by Stoke-on-Trent City Council and delivered with the

support of Friends of Burslem Park group.

This work of restoration has been done to revitalize the park‟s heritage and its wildlife in order to let

the local community and the tourists rediscovery its richness and significance.

Professional objectives and results.

- Restoration: pavilion, terrace, rose garden, main entrance

- Improve and preserve the park‟s heritage and wildlife

- Develop environmental and educational programs for schools and families

Community motivation and results.

- People knows more about the park„s heritage

- People can enjoy of the renewed park

- Volunteers: involved in the process of the park‟s restoration

- Traineeships: experts trained volunteers to gain skills in horticulture and park management.

This will ensure the conservation and care of the park in the future, and it will create new

professional figures and job positions

Funding (and resources)

This project has been funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund and the Big Lottery Fund.

Approach

The Burslem Park‟s restoration project has been an initiative of the Stoke-on-Trent City Council

supported by Friends of Burslem Park group. This project has a local identification and a bottom-up

approach.

68

The main strategy of public engagement has been the involvement of volunteers to the restoration

and maintenance process. Experts trained them in acquiring and developing skills in the

horticulture and park management in order to take care of the maintenance of the park in the

future.

Strategy of public participation in the project.

- Technical involvement

Experts helped volunteers to gain technical skills in the care of natural heritage field and this

fostered the public participation and motivation in the project management and development

- Environmental and educational programs

These programs help people to appreciate and discover its natural local heritage,

consequently they help to appreciate the decision over the park‟s restoration

Phases of community‟s engagement.

1. Burslem Park restoration plan

2. People involvement in the project asking for practical help

3. Collaboration between experts and community in develop the project

4. Volunteers trained by experts in acquiring and developing skills in the horticulture and

park management

5. Active, positive and productive public participation

6. Realization of the park‟s restoration

7. Development of environmental and educational programs for schools and families

8. Second phase of people involvement in appreciating and enjoying the park‟s experience

and the work that has been done

9. Volunteers gained skills necessary to continue the activity of maintenance in order to

preserve the park‟s heritage

Considerations

This project of restoration and revitalization of the Burslem Park has a strategy of public

involvement pretty similar to the other two cases above analyzed. The key point of the public

involvement is in the volunteers‟ figure. They have been also in this case connectors between

experts and community ,and engine for the practical and social project‟s development.

Natural heritage entails plants and this let people interact in a more natural and effective way. They

can actually, behind experts‟ traineeship, take care of it directly, so participate completely to the

process.

Success factors

1. Collaboration and support

It has been created a good cooperation and mutual support between Stoke-on-Trent City Council

and Friends of Burslem Park group, and all the stakeholders involved. This collaboration permitted

to stimulate social and cultural motivations linked to the project. The project, rediscovering and

preserving the natural heritage permitted to revitalize the social life of the community.

69

2. Volunteers

They have been the success factor of the project. They have been a strong support for the natural

heritage conservation‟s activity. They were the connectors between the experts and the community

and this has facilitated the cooperation and the project‟s development. Moreover they can be

responsible of the future maintenance of the park, that represents a complete public involvement in

the project.

3. Knowledge, expertise, experience

The role of professionals has been important to bring knowledge and expertise useful to guide the

volunteers in supporting the project. Professionals doing their job have enhanced the importance of

the Burslem Park‟s heritage that has stimulated the local residents in participating and develop

further initiatives around that.

4. Natural heritage

Natural heritage appeals to the general public and as such has made the process of engaging the

public easier.

5. Funding

This project has been funded by HLF and Big Lottery Fund that means a solid support to the

project‟s development.

Final considerations

The instrument of public survey used by HLF organization to know more about the public opinion

has been a smart and efficient instrument to measure the level of awareness, interest and

participation in the heritage care and management.

This method would be a useful instrument to measure how people evaluate heritage, their

connection with it, and their interests in being engaged before starting the process. It would be

easier to develop strategies and methods of public involvement in the heritage care knowing the

community‟s opinion.

All the three projects analyzed have in common the social objective. Indeed each project aims to

take care of heritage both tangible, intangible and natural but also addresses the project‟s

development to improve social and cultural conditions of the local community involved, like for

example develop educational programs and further initiatives linked to the projects‟ development.

Regarding the approach to the public participation, even if the projects come from a bottom-up

initiatives identified to a local level, the involvement of local people to the projects follows a top-

down approach. The approach in the three cases is the same, experts train volunteers to gain

professional skills and be part active of the project supporting it with their new expertise gained.

Expert support, traineeships and advise were fundamental to involve volunteers in the technical

field of conservation.

More info (and references)

http://www.hlf.org.uk/

http://www.hlf.org.uk/about-us#.VaU-dLUt18E

http://www.hlf.org.uk/our-projects#.VaU-frUt18E

http://www.museumsassociation.org/museums-journal/comment/01042015-comment11

70

http://www.hlf.org.uk/our-projects/sandford-heritage-and-community-project#.VaU_t7Ut18E

http://www.hlf.org.uk/our-projects/bedford-physical-training-college-stories-world-war-1-and-2

http://www.bedfordpeosa.org.uk/

http://www.hlf.org.uk/our-projects/burslem-burslem-park

Analysis - global overview

This research work has examined 10 cases (projects - initiatives - programs) developed in The

Netherlands, North America (USA and Canada) and United Kingdom. Each project has been

developed and realized following different motivations and needs, and in a specific cultural and

social context. The cases show interesting and strong common points that are useful to make a

global analysis on public participation in the heritage conservation field, and in general to heritage

care.

Regarding the technical sphere – conservation practice – the cases have concerned:

- Preservation and restoration of outdoor artworks

(e.g. case n. 1 - 5 - 7 - 8 - 9)

- Buildings restoration and requalification

(e.g. case n. 4 - 10)

- Conservation and documentation of natural sites

(e.g. case n. 2 - 3 - 10)

- Different approach towards the heritage management

(e.g. case n. 6)

Moreover regarding the social sphere most of the projects aimed to:

- Social and cultural improvement of local communities quality of life

(e.g. case n. 1 - 4 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 10)

- Aesthetic improvement of the quality of surrounding sites

(e.g. case n. 1 - 2 - 3 - 9 - 10)

- Raise awareness, guide, and “educate” to the heritage care

(e.g. case n. 1 - 2 - 5 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10)

The first point to underline concerns the approach. There is an equal number of cases that have

been promoted by top-down or bottom-up initiatives. This means that the approach to involve

people in the heritage conservation process comes from organizations‟ inputs but also from needs

and motivations of local communities.

71

Table n.1

In table n.1 it is possible to notice that 4 cases have been developed following a top-down

approach, like SOS! Save Outdoor Sculpture for instance. Four cases came up from bottom-up

initiatives, an example are the Collectie Escamp project and De Rivierjutters community. Only two

cases - Tramremise De Hallen project and Rescue Public Mural initiative - had a mixed approach

coming from mutual needs of the local communities and organizations.

If a project has a top-down approach it is usually well-structured and has developed tools and

programs to let people take part into the process, and collaboration and support of experts is

fundamental (e.g. case n.7). If a project has a bottom-up approach and starts from a community‟s

initiative and need, its development follows a more spontaneous path that it is organized during the

process but that can involve people more actively - such as decision making - (e.g. case n.1). Also

in this case the collaboration and support of experts is fundamental in order to give the right

approach to the conservation practice.

Analyzing those cases 2 principal paths have been outlined which stimulate the involvement of

people in projects and initiatives linked to the heritage care.

8 of 10 projects followed the here below path:

AWARENESS – ENGAGEMENT – RESPONSIBILITY

Be conscious part of the community / heritage care - AWARENESS

Be active part of the community / heritage care - ENGAGEMENT

Be productive part of the community / heritage care - RESPONSIBILITY

In the process of public participation, both with a top-down and bottom-up approach, the first point

to be stressed is to catch the interest of people in order to find and develop strategies to raise

public awareness toward local heritage care.

So the social motivation is the first point of development in the public participation strategy.

Consequently once the interest of people is caught, and awoken their sense of belonging and

ownership toward heritage – and so towards the projects in question – it is more natural for them to

become engaged in the process. This step it is always successful through the support of experts

and practical tools that facilitate people‟s understanding and approach toward the conservation

practice.

Awareness and participation develop that sense of belonging and ownership not only toward local

heritage but to the same project‟s process. Be part of something stimulates people‟s responsibility

72

toward the heritage care‟s issue and encourage them to take initiatives, give support, and bring

into the project their skills, experiences, and point of view – the local context.

Taking as example the Collectie Escamp project, the motivational factor – the enthusiasm and

sense of belonging toward the Escamp district‟s cultural heritage – has been the engine of the

process of public participation. Consequently collaboration and support amongst all stakeholders

and in particular between experts and non-experts has “facilitated” the engagement process

making the interested people an active part of the project. Finally the responsibility has been the

last step of the participation process. The community involved – the volunteers – has become

productive, taking actions, doing something for their own district.

The responsibility factor should have a new core role, a new commitment for cultural institutions:

establish an equal connection between them and community partners.

This path has been quite common, but there were other 2 projects that developed their public

participation path following the here below steps:

INITIATIVE – ENGAGEMENT – AWARENESS

This path has been common in projects with a top-down approach like the case of Nagele

landscape project.

It is important to underline that the initiatives do not always come from the community and there is

not always an immediate rise in the awareness towards heritage care. Like I said in the principle

each project has its own social and cultural context. Sometimes it is towards the project‟s

realization that people, seeing the results, are stimulated and encouraged to take part and promote

further initiatives. It is through the project‟s process and the instruments of public involvement - the

participation - that people enhancing their connection and understanding toward something that

belong to them. Awareness and appreciation come at the end of the process and encourage

further projects. In this case a good point to stress are the project‟s tools for the public

participation, like in the case of Nagele. The workshop organized by Buro Mien Ruys has been

essential to inform the project to the residents; to communicate them the historical and cultural

significance of the green structure of the village, to let them participate in decision making, and

guide them to the maintenance practice. Moreover it is fundamental to start the process in order to

see the final and successful results.

In the cases analyzed people have been engaged through the following instruments:

- Programs

- Traineeships

- Workshops

- Meetings

- Activities

- Events

- Expert advice

- Network

- On-line tools

73

Table n.2

As it is possible to observe in the table n.2, expert advice (8 cases on 10), meetings and activities

have been common instruments adopted on public engagement process. It is worth to underline

that programs have been as well a practical instrument to get people closer to heritage care and in

particular to the heritage conservation and management. The last point of analysis concerns the

on-line tools that have been a useful means of “wider” public involvement and a precious vehicle to

“guide” people toward to conservation practice such as the expert advice. The practical tools are

instruments that permit people to easily get closer, be involved and act towards the heritage care.

On-line tools are extremely important and a point that should be stressed.

Non-expert functions on the public participation process in the cases analyzed has been mostly

about:

- Research

- Evaluation

- Decision making

- Organization

- Documentation

- Communication

- Maintenance

74

Table n.3

As it is possible to see in the table n.3, documentation work (7 cases on 10) but also research and

communication have been common function of public participation in the projects‟ realization.

It is interesting to underline the decision making point. In 5 cases on 10 people participated to the

decisional sphere that highlights an important step forward in order to build equal relationships

between cultural organizations and community partners.

From the research study other interesting results have come up like the success factors.

Seven common success factors have been fundamental for the projects‟ objectives realization:

- Motivation

- Support

- Collaboration

- Organization

- Group

- Professionals

- Volunteers

75

Table n.4

In the table n.4 it is interesting to underline that the most important factor for success has been the

collaboration factor, 10 cases on 10. This is really inspiring because it outlines the importance of

cooperation between local and national authorities, different organizations, experts and local

communities. Only in this way all the stakeholders are involved, only through collaboration all the

interests are taken into consideration and different resources can enrich the initiative.

Moreover support and motivation factors were common points of projects‟ success and that

supports the importance of the above consideration.

Another common success factor was the professionals that it is possible to count in 7 cases. In a

technical field like the conservation it is really important to bring knowledge, expertise and

experience because it is a fundamental guide for non-experts - and this is the case of public

participation to the heritage care.

The role of volunteers in the different cases analyzed (like Collectie Escamp, De Rivierjutters,

SOS!, and HLF projects) has been really interesting regarding the public participation. If the

organization develops practical tools to educate and introduce people to the conservation practice,

the volunteers are “the practical human resources” that aim to introduce the rest of the community

to the heritage care. They are connectors between organization and community and they can

foster people awareness toward heritage and their interest in participating in projects. With

appropriate traineeships volunteers can play an important role in the public participation process.

This success factor should be further analyzed and developed.

Another factor that deserve a brief reflection that wasn‟t so common in the cases was the funding.

Funding of course is an essential factor in a successful project, unfortunately such funding is not so

common like in the Heritage Lottery Fund projects of UK, for instance. I have also to say that,

indeed funding is a strong and solid support to a project, but searching for resources sometimes is

also a good vehicle to establish wider connections or develop further initiatives.

It is worth to have a brief reflection on the factor that, in my opinion, has been the most powerful:

motivation. This is the engine of each project both coming from an organization and a community

initiative. The emotional factor produces energy to devolve to other stakeholders. The awareness

that fosters enthusiasm and motivation is the basic point and the most important factor to take care

76

properly of heritage. Enthusiasm creates group, support, cooperation, brings in financial and

human resources. Motivation can change a project aim addressing it to a more democratic and

productive solutions, like in the Tramremise De Hallen case, for instance.

The 10 cases that I have analyzed are initiatives that have been developed in The Netherlands (6

projects), in North America (USA and Canada, 3 projects) and The United Kingdom (1 program

that entails 3 small projects). All these projects reflect the country‟s reality where they have been

created and realized.

For example the approach of the projects developed in The Netherlands usually is coming from

community or local initiative, e.g. Collectie Escamp project and De Rivierjutters community.

Moreover there is a good connection and collaboration between the organizations and the local

communities. Usually organizations are really open-minded (the case of RVR and Rivierjutters

community) and willing to let people participate in an active and decisional way. The approach to

the public participation is quite spontaneous, this depends also on the context of the project, and it

is progressive. The public participation is meant since the principle and in a meaningful way.

Motivation, enthusiasm, group, collaboration and creativity are the key factors of success of these

projects.

The projects studied that have been developed in USA or Canada are all basically influenced by

the SOS! Save Outdoor Sculpture program‟s structure even if they have a different approach.

Usually the initiative comes from the organization that want to educate and stimulate people‟s

interest toward the local heritage care. Those programs are structured and enriched by tools that

can easily let people actively participate in the process. Taking part in the decision making is

limited for the public and any other form of participation, is guided by experts. It is important to

underline that these programs are nationwide that is a fundamental strategy of “sentimental

education” of a population toward heritage care. Moreover as said before a well-structured project

is important because the initiative does not always come from a community need or motivation.

For the cases regarding the Heritage Lottery Fund is interesting to underline the funding aspect. In

The United Kingdom context more than in the other countries that have been taken into exam,

funding has been fundamental to the projects‟ realization. This factor influenced other aspects of

the public engagement like the role of volunteers and the role of community partners.

Regarding this last point of reflection it is important to introduce some observations coming from

the report of Dr. Bernadette Lynch, “Whose cake is it anyway?” (Lynch: 2011) about the

effectiveness of the public engagement in UK‟s museums and galleries.

In 2009 Paul Hamlyn Foundation (Lynch: 2011, 27) commissioned B. Lynch to work with a study

group of 12 selected museums and galleries in UK that have been actively developing public

involvement processes in order to test the real nature and effectiveness of those public

engagement practices. Museums and galleries staff, volunteers and community partners have

been the participants of the study group. From this study B. Lynch wrote a report with the analysis

and findings of the cases studied.

It is really interesting outline the findings of this study. Despite decades of investments in public

participation in UK‟s museums and galleries, what resulted from the study was a lack of meaningful

public participation and the localization of the community partners‟ role in the peripheral ambit

instead of being the core of the organizations‟ objectives.

The problem has been identified in the method of financing adopted – the system of short-term

projects funding. This develops a “funding competition” in the museums world. The organizations

77

felt the pressure to create always attractive projects and justifying reports. So they didn‟t really

develop a strategy of long-term program based in the real community‟s needs and in the active

involvement.

The community partners, as well, felt disillusioned and disengaged. They had the feeling to be

actually marginalized and only the “beneficiaries” of the process of engagement, not a meaningful

and active part.

The economical crisis and the cuts to the museums funding has been a moment of reflection of the

real mission of the cultural organizations, a point of analysis on how to build a productive

relationship with the community partners, and an opportunity to change their approach to the public

engagement.

For smaller organizations for example, those who have been embedded with the local

communities, the process of public engagement followed a more significant way, focusing on the

community‟s active participation, and fostering their awareness and responsibilities towards local

heritage care and management. “They understood that the focus of engagement work was not in

terms of treating their community partners as beneficiaries but as active part” (Lynch: 2011, 7).

Conclusions

In order to develop strategies to enhance the public participation, actively and consciously, to the

heritage care and its implications; it would be productive to build the participation process on the

here below and already cited paths.

AWARENESS – ENGAGEMENT – RESPONSIBILITY

INITIATIVE – ENGAGEMENT – AWARENESS

The choice of the appropriate path will depend on the social and cultural context of the strategy

developed and also if the initiative will come from a local community or an organization, if the

approach will be top-down or bottom-up.

When the initiative comes from people it would be important to develop means to support and

collaborate with them.

When the initiative comes from an organization it would be important to develop instruments, like

programs and tools to sensitize public interest and raise people awareness in order to involve them

actively and meaningfully in the process.

In order to create appropriate strategies and instruments to the public involvement it would be

fundamental to stress and implement the success factors above mentioned.

From the study and analysis of the 10 cases taken into exam I have drawn out 3 examples that for

their approach, structure, and motivations could be applied for further initiatives and programs

regarding the public participation to the conservation field. Moreover their components are

interesting to develop strategies and method of public engagement.

Those cases are: Collectie Escamp project, De Rivierjutters community and SOS! Save Outdoor

Sculpture program.

78

Collectie Escamp project has a fundamental motivation factor that involves the local community in

the project of restoration of the district‟s artworks through a radical and complete way. The

decisional sphere in the public involvement process is really important and the basis of the

democratization process of the heritage care and management. That‟s why it is interesting and

fundamental for future application. Moreover the enthusiasm and motivation brought from the

community would be a nice example for other community projects for their successful realization.

De Rivierjutters community is an original and really interesting concept. This community is a

network, communicators through media that are capable to engage people in a fast and passionate

way. They are ambassadors and observers of the RVR program. Their participation involves the

communication sphere but also they are a transparent vehicle of connection between the

organization and the rest of the community. They participate actively and meaningfully to the RVR

program. This example is important because of the method: “De Rivierjutters community”. This is

an instrument of engagement in the process through a creative, spontaneous, and decisional way.

The “community-network-observers” method could be applied easily to any projects also to the

heritage conservation field.

SOS! Save Outdoor Sculpture has a nationwide value. It has a great structure and tools that can

be of big support to raise awareness, to educate people to the heritage care but also to let them

interact properly in the heritage conservation practice. This is an awarded strategy and method of

public participation, its concept has inspired and has been applied to other projects and initiatives

like Rescue Public Murals and Preservation of Outdoor Painted Sculpture in Québec. It could be

useful and effective also for further initiatives.

Regarding strategies, the role of volunteering has represented and represents a valid support and

an important function in the cultural heritage world. Volunteers are a sort of practical and cultural

connectors between the cultural heritage institutions and the local communities.

It is extremely interesting the opinion of the Italian philosopher and cultural heritage expert

Margherita Sani about the role of volunteering in Europe. In her paper Participatory governance of

cultural heritage for the European Expert Network on Culture (Sani: 2015) she makes an analysis

on the participatory governance to the cultural heritage in Europe, and underlines the need to

involve the society in any formal and decisional role. She suggests to adopt new management

models that involve a wider range of stakeholders with more significant responsibilities. Then she

focuses the analysis on the volunteers‟ figure, their role, and their strategic function in the cultural

heritage world.

Margherita Sani considers the volunteer as the most common and transparent example of public

and/or community involvement in the cultural institution‟s life (Sani: 2015, 7). She recognizes the

role of volunteers as fundamental, a “bridge” between institution and community. In her opinion the

volunteer is also responsible for promoting and encouraging the community‟s engagement,

awareness and responsibility towards the local cultural heritage. According to Sani the volunteer is

not an unpaid figure that can substitute the staff member, he is an important instrument that brings

personal expertise, experience, motivations and community‟s background in the cultural heritage

institution.

This role should be seriously developed by the institutions with educational and training programs

that can enrich the volunteers‟ professional skills and prepare them as future professionals figure.

Examples of this successful factor can be found in the projects analyzed like: SOS! Save Outdoor

Sculpture, De Rivierjutters community, Collectie Escamp project, and in particular in the Heritage

Lottery Fund projects.

79

A suggestion regarding the strategy of public involvement focuses on the instrument of “preventive

public opinion analysis” developed through the public survey for the Heritage Lottery Fund strategic

plan. This instrument has been useful and significant to test the waters, to know more about the

public opinion toward the strategic plan. It is already an effective way to involve the local

community in the process.

The expedient of public survey used by HLF organization to know more about the public opinion

has been a smart and efficient instrument to measure the public level of awareness, interest and

participation to the heritage care and management.

This method would be a useful instrument to measure how people evaluate heritage, their

connection with it, and their interests in being engaged before starting the process. It would be

easier for the development of strategies and methods of public engagement to the heritage care

know the community opinion beforehand.

The study carried out by Dr. Bernadette Lynch over the effectiveness and nature of the public

engagement in 12 selected museums and galleries of UK (Lynch: 2011) underlined an incisive

methodology of interaction between cultural organizations and their community partners.

The instruments utilized to develop this analysis and reflection on the subject have been:

Participatory workshops, presentations, debates, co-developed organizational questionnaire,

review of the policy documents and organizational charts, the “storywall”, one-to-one interviews,

the support of “critical friends” from other organizations during the meetings.

Those “actions” have been effective instruments and methods for a profound and multi-perspective

analysis on the theme of public participation which have implicated meaningful changes and

productive developments in the museums and galleries studied. Those instruments could be a

valid support of study to other countries in matter of analysis over the public engagement to the

heritage care and management.

80

Appendix – interviews

These following interviews are part of Maria Lucia Buccolo's research work at the RCE –

Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed for the project “Erfgoed in Gebruik”, in order to find

examples of methods and strategies of public participation in the cultural heritage conservation

field, and in general, to the heritage care.

Interview Collectie Escamp project

Interviewed: Jennefer Verbeek - coordinator Collectie Escamp team

Ewout Ouwehand - volunteer Collectie Escamp team

Ingrid Bosboom - volunteer Collectie Escamp team

Thijs van Gaalen - volunteer Collectie Escamp team

Interviewer: Maria Lucia Buccolo

Architect - Master‟s student at Reinwardt Academy, AHK - intern at RCE,

afd. C&R

Date and Location: Zuid57 - Zuidlarenstraat 57, The Hague - Wednesday, 03 June 2015

• Project overview

1. Could you tell about the Collectie Escamp project? outlining the district‟s

background and the artworks‟ history?

JV: In the Escamp area of the Hague there was an organization, Platform57, a platform for modern

art in the neighborhood. I worked for Platform57 and we completed several projects together. This

foundation was organized around the artist-photographer Johan Nieuwenhuize What we did in the

Platform57 was to invite different artists to look at the neighborhood and create artwork specifically

for it; there are some examples of that artwork here in this building. In 2013 I was the business

manager of the organization. In this centre, Zuid57, where we are now, there is also a theatre, the

Dakota theatre. The former director of the theatre, Paul Cornelissen had a very good eye and

interest for the art of the neighborhood. When the rebuilding of the theatre started he motivated a

particular attention and interest for the artworks in the district. In the period between 2010-2013

the theatre‟s director, Paul Cornelissen, being interested in the artworks of the Escamp district,

started to organize the restoration of some artworks and raise the awareness of this local

heritage. Consequently, in 2014, the Escamp district council, fostered by the work of Paul

Cornelissen, started to recognize the importance of the artworks existing in the district‟s area. In

2013 Paul Cornelissen left Theater Dakota for a new job in the south of Holland. The district

council asked the new director of Theatre Dakota, to develop a plan to restore and revitalize more

artworks in the Escamp district, offering money to achieve this. The new director didn‟t have the

81

expertise to realize this plan so, he asked the Platform57 organization to do it. This increased the

interest in the case. Platform57 came up with the Collectie Escamp Project. The Escamp district

council then asked Platform57 to select which artworks had to be restored. To help make the

selection they decided to ask local residents about the choice of the artworks to restore. They put

an advertisement in a local newspaper and people reacted. Platform57 tried to keep in touch with

the people who reacted and tried to develop the plan for the Collectie Escamp Project. In that

period, the first year, we helped to restore two artworks by commissioning two professional

restorers. We also compiled the book „Collectie Escamp-een introductie‟ about the Project and

organized a cycle tour. We thought that was and became such a nice group and gathering. I think I

speak for everybody, when I say that this Project is very important. The artworks in the Escamp

district comprise 1/3 of all the outside artworks in the whole of The Hague.

EO: The Dakota theatre‟s director, Paul Cornelissen, made the Escamp district council aware of

the importance and the value of the artworks in the district. He started the process of restoration of

Escamp artworks, he raised money to start restoring some artworks. His interest for the district‟s

art and his initiative have enhanced the public and the Escamp district council awareness of the

importance of the artworks in Escamp.

IB: I found it really sad that several buildings in the district had been demolished and with them a

lot of the incorporated artworks. The council overlooked their value but the local community did

not.

EO: Several buildings, especially old school buildings, had pieces of art in them or on them, and

when the buildings were demolished the art pieces were demolished as well. So quite a lot of

artworks are already lost; about 50 or 60 statues or building decorations.

JV: There is also an example here, the mural which is from the same period, on the first floor, was

almost lost, because people just didn‟t realize that it was a piece of art and that it was valuable.

That‟s why we want to make people aware about the importance and the value of the art

belonging to the district, because people are not aware but if they become aware they hear the

anecdotes and they get involved. The artwork for example of Paul Kromjong was restored without

knowing the whole history of the artwork. Indeed they restored the artwork, respecting its original

colors, but they made the panels around it white and not light yellow as they were originally. They

didn‟t collaborate in that case with experts.

JV: The area what we are talking about is Escamp. Most of the area was built right after the WW2,

in the 50s-60s, at that time we had regulations in Holland about the art decoration on new

buildings. There was the rule of the 1%. 1% of the construction cost had to go towards the art

because they wanted to support artists and they thought that it was very important to foster art.

The city of The Hague allocated an extra 1%. Most of the artworks were part of the buildings and

statues. That‟s why there are so many artworks in Escamp. We discovered that there are a lot of

valuable artworks here, that‟s an important fact to know about this district.

2. Would you explain the reasons why the project was born? What are its aim and

process development? How difficult was it to get the project started?

EO: The reason why the Collectie Escamp Project was born is to be found in the initial interest of

Paul Cornelissen in the Escamp‟s artworks and his motivation to take care of them.

82

JV: Our motivation as an organization was the importance of involving the people of Escamp in the

project. It is necessary to involve the residents, not only experts. It is more a social aim. We work

now with the council and e.g. with Stroom which is an organization in The Hague that is

responsible for the visual arts and the contacts with artists in The Hague . But what we want to do

is to make more people aware of the value of these artworks and involve them by organizing

activities, cycle routes. So maybe in about 5 years everybody is more aware.

IB: Maybe some residents will adopt some artworks and take care of them and their surroundings.

JV: I don‟t live here but I think that most of the time this part of The Hague doesn‟t get that much

attention. People that live here think that there isn‟t that much to do or to see in this area. So that

means that the alternative area is the city centre. That‟s where people think of when they think

about art or a good place to visit. I disagree because I think that we have a lot of value here and

the Collectie is one of the biggest in the area, and from a high quality. I think it is really worth-while

for people in The Hague, in Holland and in the world to visit here! It is also about pride, seeing the

value of and taking care of the place where you live.

JV: What was difficult when we first started was to get everyone, the people, the municipality, the

theatre aware of how you need to work, how to develop the Project. For me it is very normal to

think “why should we decide which artworks are worth restoration and which are not? Let‟s ask

the people!” For me that is the normal process. I was kind of surprised when people reacted to our

advertisement in the local newspaper. We had 10 reactions and that‟s when we started with

participation. We started the Project with a group of 6-7 people from the Escamp community. Some

people are involved in the project process full-time and some people occasionally. Now it is not

that difficult to get the group together; I think we are doing pretty well! Ingrid for example is busy

contacting some other newspapers about the Collectie Escamp Project and they really want to

hear about it, they are enthusiastic about it. What also helps our participation process is that we

are hosted by the Dakota theatre and the theatre has a lot of volunteers.

3. What is the current situation of the project? In the matter of artworks‟ management

and conservation status?

JV: Now Platform57 no longer exists , the Project is called Collectie Escamp Project, and is carried

out by us, the Collectie Escamp Team.

JV: Our role is not in the technical field of conservation, it is the municipality that commissions

restaurateurs. What we do is to draw attention to it. We see if some artwork needs some

restoration‟s work or not and we contact or inform the experts in conservation.

IB: First of all you have to identify the owner, is it the artist, the architect, the city council…?

JV: In total 9 artworks have been restored, 6 in the period when the theatre‟s director was involved

and just 3 in the name of Collectie Escamp Team. The management and maintenance of these 9

artworks are mostly the responsibility of the The Hague council and of the Stroom organization.

4. What effect has the project had on social and cultural development for the

district? How did you measure it?

83

JV: We have just started. The only thing I can say until now is that we have written the book

“Collectie Escamp - an introduction” and 300 copies have already been distributed. We have also

produced the bicycle route and its brochure. Out of a stock of 1000 brochures we have to refill the

brochure stand regularly. Many people participated in the cycle tour and at the book presentation.

We now have a team of about 8 people and we have partners from various organizations.

EO: It‟s too short a time to say that the Project has had a specific effect on the community, we

have to wait for it. Even if we are very motivated people we are still a small group.

JV: Taking as an example the restoration of Christa van Santen‟s artwork. It was in really bad

condition and the artwork was hidden from view in the middle of plants. The people that took care

of the surroundings and cleaning of the resorted artwork was at first a school, but we now have

involved a group of Indian people. These people from the neighborhood were not really aware of

the artwork but they are now. They were at the opening and from then on they have ensured that

the artwork is clean and not overgrown with plants. They are doing this voluntarily.

JV: If they are still alive we try to involve the artists, that‟s what we have done with Christa van

Santen. We called her and we said that we wanted to restore her work and we asked her if maybe

she wanted to be involved. She had forgotten about this artwork, because she completed it 40

years ago. She is 78 years of age and still working. She was very enthusiastic to be involved. She

chose the colors for the restoration, she came to the opening, and during the cycle tour she

explained the history of the artwork. She said: that‟s really important. I never thought that people

would care so much about a piece of my work. This is an example of another effect of the Project.

JV: The community wasn‟t present during Christa van Santen‟s artwork restoration but at the

opening they were. We are working now on a cycle route about Jan Snoeck.

5. Where does the funding for the project come from?

JV: In 2014 the funding came from the municipality. For this year there is a small amount of money

left from the municipality but the main work is done for free, and we are trying to get funding for

next year. We have big ideas about things to organize and how to organize them. We want to

develop a big plan to really try and involve all people in the Project and get them aware of the art in

the district. We don‟t have commercial partners, for cultural projects it is quite difficult get funding

from commercial sponsors. The funding is partly from the municipality council and partly from

different funding organizations, but we don‟t have funding as yet, we intend ask for it.

• Strategy of public participation

1. What was the aim of Platform57 regarding the residents‟ involvement in a

conservation project?

IB: The aim was to make the residents proud of their own district.

EO: To improve the standard of living here.

84

JV: And furthermore to give them the opportunity to take responsibility for their own environment.

That‟s how you get them involved and aware.

TG: First you make them aware of what is in the neighborhood and then you make them

responsible for it.

JV: Awareness, participation and responsibility, that‟s really what it is!

2. In your opinion, what were the community‟s motivations in participating in

Collectie Escamp project?

TG: We are all very motivated towards the Collectie Escamp Project. We are all people that love

art in the neighborhood and we want to keep it, we want to keep it well and we want to tell other

people about it. Every week I talk about some artist and artwork in a column on our Facebook

page.

EO: Taking care of your environment and making sure that artworks do their job and elevate the

feeling of your life here. Now we are much more aware of the district‟s heritage.

JV: To educate the neighborhood .

IB: I can‟t imagine the district without some statues or artworks. I have lived here for 4 years and

in the beginning when I started to discover the neighborhood I was very much surprised by the

amount of greenery and quantity of artworks. Luckily I don‟t have a car because when you drive in

a car you just pass things by but on a bicycle or walking you see the surroundings much better.

TG: I discovered a statue that I had never seen before and I have lived here in Escamp for 40

years. It is beautiful and it makes me feel good.

JV: I don‟t live here but I see that everybody wants to learn about the Project and all this

enthusiasm is really valuable and important to share.

3. What have been the organization‟s mechanisms to involve the residents in the

project‟s participation? Could you outline some practical methods?

JV: The method that we used was advertising in the local newspaper. Since the start the principle

has been to involve people by participation in the Project . We asked them to show us, by cycling

through the area , their favorite artworks in the district. From that, together we selected specific

artworks as points for the bicycle tour. It was the same with the book we didn‟t write all the text, we

were helped by volunteers. We involved the residents with everything. In the future it is really

important that the collaboration with the community starts since it is the principle and for

everything. I don‟t like, as professional to do everything by myself and to decide everything. Ingrid

for example is seeking newspapers‟ attention for the Projects. Thijs is organizing the bicycle route

and the Facebook account, Ewout knows everything about Jan Snoeck, so why should I do it all by

myself? They can do it themselves, that‟s what I think is really important. Everybody has his strong

points. But we do give training for our volunteers as well.

85

4. What have been the role and tasks of the residents in the project‟s process?

JV: Those mentioned above. Making a sort of list: social media, other media, making contact with

municipality or council or artists…

JV: Still now all tasks are for volunteers, the whole community is invited to open meetings, book

presentations, openings, bicycle routes. For the next assignment we would like to involve all of

them more. Now we want to get them more aware about the process and invite them to the events.

TG: And to read our Facebook column every week, there are 250 readers in one month time.!

EO: What we are thinking now is to do a special project in different areas of the Escamp district,

e.g., special artist‟s bicycle tour like the Jan Snoeck tour. Make them smaller for a smaller group of

people so it is closer for the residents of that part of the district.

JV: We will visit the neighborhood and first of all see what we have there as suitable artworks. To

make it better we will need to clean and restore some artwork, maybe people there know a nice

anecdote about the artwork, we can then develop cultural activities and events. We will not do this

everywhere at the same time, for example next year we will start with 2 neighborhoods.

5. Would you explain the mechanisms of collaboration between experts and residents

adopted? Was there a connector figure such as, e.g., volunteers? If yes, could you explain their

role?

JV: As an organization we were the connection between the experts and residents, but we want to

do it differently from now on. For example we contacted Christa van Santen, or the experts, or the

volunteers for the Project. The plan is not to let the professional organization connect the experts

and residents, now the volunteers will do that. They have responsibilities by getting to know the

experts, for example. Every 3-4 weeks we have a meeting together and we divide tasks.

Sometimes we organize meetings in the evening when we invite experts and sometimes as a team

we go to visit an expert, for example we went to De Stroom organization to learn how to work

together.

JV: I don‟t think that volunteers need training for the Project. They know more than I do, why

should an organization be the one to take the responsibility? We think that it is much more direct

and easy like this.

EO: There are experts and residents. We developed from residents into volunteers, now the next

step should be to get more and new residents to become volunteers. The connecting figure was at

first Platform57 and nowadays it is Collectie Escamp, and we are trying to connect the artists, the

artworks with the residents.

JV: I also think as the Collectie Escamp Team that we want to keep an open network.

• Public‟s evaluation

86

1. Could you estimate the level of the community‟s appreciation about the

project? Was the community proud of the work done?

JV: I think people were proud, we were proud. During the bicycle tour people were really

enthusiastic about it.

IB: A lot of the people from the neighborhood were at first surprised and then, I suppose, they will

look at their surrounding in a different way, they see artworks that at first they didn‟t notice.

EO: We don‟t have sufficient instruments to measure the public appreciation. We made a special

(bike) tour in which we invited all the volunteers of the Dakota theatre, altogether there were 15-20

people.

JV: We made a program for elementary school. These kids were aware of the presence in the

neighborhood of the artworks and also of the importance of their care, they wanted to preserve

them in the school! The teachers from the schools, they made a bicycle tour as well and they

discovered an artwork in their school too. They called De Stroom organization who will deal with it.

2. How has this project affected the residents‟ appreciation for the local cultural

heritage? Has the project made them more aware about the heritage outside?

IB: We don‟t know. The time is too short.

JV: I think it is too early for that. “Spreading the Project” to the other neighborhoods is our goal but

it has still to be planned.

TG: First make a good plan among the neighborhoods. The Collectie Escamp group is too young.

JV: We just started to get volunteers and residents more involved. The level of participation is

higher but we have just started.

• Final considerations

1. What is your personal opinion about the project? What would you definitely

do again and what not?

TG: I love to write columns for Facebook. I am learning about the statues, I make the pictures for

facebook by myself. I was aware of the statues in the neighborhood, but I just saw them, now I

really study the statues.

JV: As I have already explained the Project started by firstly having the artworks localized and

then letting the people choose between them. I didn‟t like that. Now our approach is to ask people

directly and explaining how they can get involved in being responsible for a Project. What I hope is

that in 3/5 years there won‟t be a need to inform residents about the artworks in this area. That‟s

my goal. I think as a professional that it‟s not good to take care of everything and at the end invite

87

people to show them the work. You need to involve people from the beginning, in all aspects of a

Project.

EO: I think that the way we are working now is very good. I don‟t see anything that we shouldn‟t

repeat.

IB: I read a small article, the advertisement from the Team and that‟s how I got involved. I would do

the same thing again.

2. What about the future development of Collectie Escamp project?

JV: We are making a big plan now. We want to make people aware, that is the biggest goal. In

particular we want to develop a special project for each neighborhood, as mentioned before, but 2

per year and get more residents involved. We want to develop a plan in which we are not only

talking about artworks in the neighborhood but also anecdotes linked to them and coming from the

residents. We want to keep being a team maybe in collaboration with other and bigger

organizations as well, like RCE for example. We want to be specialized in doing this kind of project

and also be a reference for other associations or districts. Be a support in the field for the others. I

expect to get some funding and we hope so! We are developing a plan for the next year. Simone

Noordermeer and I are developing the concept and we asked everybody for their opinions about it.

Now we are polishing the project plan, in the summer it will go for funding and in November we will

know if we can go on. Simone and I are the only people who will get paid for the work that we are

doing here, we will be the only professionals involved but this doesn‟t mean that the other

members of the team are less valuable. We aim to enlarge the Team to 20 people maybe!

3. Will the community be involved in the future project‟s development?

Everybody: That‟s our goal!

JV: partners also involved are Dakota Theatre and VESTIA organization.

Notes:

RCE: Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed (Cultural Heritage Agency of The Netherlands)

Jennefer Verbeek, (JV)

Ewout Ouwehand, (EO)

Ingrid Bosboom, (IB)

Thijs van Gaalen, (TG)

88

Interview De Rivierjutters community

Interviewed: Emmie Nuijen

Physical geographer - Rivierjutter, volunteer for the RVR program

Interviewer: Maria Lucia Buccolo

Architect - Master‟s student at Reinwardt Academy, AHK - intern at RCE, afd. C&R

Date and Location: Utrecht - Thursday, 11 June 2015

Project overview

1. Could you tell about the Rivierjutters community? About its history and participants

background?

The organization looked at the Rivierjutters, someone who could make some pictures and tell

some stories about the river areas. We had to write a letter so we could come to the first meeting

of the program. It was a mix group, most people are from the area of Nijmegen. They have

different backgrounds, they are interested and from different river areas. Some of them are in the

field of biology, some others in techniques, history; I‟m a geographer. They are different type of

people but the common thing is that they live in the river area and they love it.

Rijkswaterstaat (RWS), where the program Room for the River (RVR) is developed and located,

chose for this model, this approach with the community and the Rivierjutters. They want to tell their

stories about the rivers but also they want let people tell their stories about that. The organization

Room for the River used this model and the work of documentation of the Rivierjutters to

communicate and inform the rest of the community about the Room for the River projects. We

communicate our way to see the river areas and we share these imagines and stories through

social media like Twitter and Facebook.

2. Would you explain the reasons why the community is born? What is its aim and

objectives? How difficult was to get the community‟s work started?

In the past I worked for RWS. They informed people about the program in a technical way. Now

they want to do it different, and that‟s what I like. Take a different picture. They are working in this

region in these years, so people who live in the area can see what is good and what not. They can

tell you about it and you can get more and diverse stories. In this time changing is good to let

people tell about their own area, it is a more local perspective.

It wasn‟t difficult get the community Rivierjutters started. It was not too big group, we started with a

group of 20-30 people. It is a nice club! They are a kind of enthusiastic people who know what is

happened in the area, in this way you can tell a complete story and involve other people. That‟s our

goal.

I don‟t know what is the long term goal for the program, maybe it is too soon.

89

The idea about the Rivierjutters community: someone called the department of communication of

the Room for the River program telling that there was a desire to show also a more local

perspective about the river area. He didn‟t like just the technical way to inform people about the

river area program, and he proposed to let also the community with their stories and way of

documenting to communicate the rivers‟ program. The RWS wanted to communicate the project in

a different way, as well. It has been set an appointment with the person interested and the RWS

members responsible for the Room for the River program and from then started the Rivierjutters

community project.

3. What is the current situation of the community‟s work? In matter of work done for the

RVR program?

We make stories and put them on the social media, that‟s all time. We can participate in the RVR

project‟s meetings, meet the representatives and talk with them. We are for example invited for

special meetings, when the project gets important steps and there is a presentation of that, they

invite Ministers but also the Rivierjutters members. So we can be part of the project. We meet as

Rivierjutters community three times a year, somewhere in the country.

I think that right now the community is around 40 members. I‟m one of the administrator for the

facebook account and now you can see that more people are joining us and want to follow us.

They see and read what we post and they follow us, it is nice. As community you have an active

part, the Rivierjutters, and a following part, the rest of the local community, people who follow us

through Facebook or Twitter.

4. What effect the Rivierjutters community and the RVR program had in social and

cultural development for the rivers areas?

There are a lot of projects from the program Room for the River that are developing in the area in

this moment. What do you see now is more nature, recreation possibilities along the rivers. I think

that some areas are getting nicer and there are possibilities to join the projects also. I worked with

the project linked to Tiel area. They have a working area there and now we want that in the area

some part of the staff stay there to use that as recreational area for opportunities in the future.

Now we, as Rivierjutters, are talking with the RWS, the province, and with people that can manage

that. When there are people that ask something for the project we are there to express their needs.

I think that people see that we have a role in such a big project and they can be part as well

communicating to us their needs and expectations. So we are a serious partner. Regarding the

decision making role, no, because the plan are already settled, perhaps more for the future.

We are not part of the decision making process right now, we have an important role in the

communication and the divulgation of the projects throughout the community, that I think is also

important. Our role as community Rivierjutters is also important to inform and get the interest of the

rest of the community towards the RVR program, we make them aware and enthusiastic about the

river areas. I have to say that RVR is a nice program and a well done collaboration with the RWS

organization.

Strategy of public participation

90

1. What was your motivation in participating in the Rivierjutters community?

First of all I like the strategy of RWS, it has been long time different, so only talking from the

organization, now we are telling our stories to the RWS and about the river areas and I like it, and I

like also that they invite us to go out in river areas and tell stories, that is good, and I want to do

that. I also want to put river areas in the map of The Netherlands as a landscape reference. In this

way people from the outside know that we are a river country and that it is a nice region. They can

come and we will show our beautiful area, the rivers. I think that it could be a big point for the future

and an international selling point for The Netherlands.

About my motivation in participating to the Rivierjutters, it was also because I like the rivers, I like

to write and make pictures, and mostly because it is a good and positive initiative.

2. Do you know about other people motivations in participating in Rivierjutters

community?

All the Rivierjutters are from the river areas. They know that there are projects for their

environment and they want to take the opportunity to be in the project. They want to see the

process, make photos, talk to the people that are working there. Also some of them don‟t have a

job at the moment, they have time to do it and they can demonstrate their skills and expertise.

They are not paid by the RWS, they are volunteers. This is also an opportunity to show something

of yourself and work at your new carrier. The first motivation for everyone is the interest for the

rivers, then because they are also very interested in the RVR program and linked projects.

3. How did the RVR organization involve you in the program‟s participation?

We are in touch with the representative members of the RVR program, we can talk to them,

discuss, and we are invited in meetings, they constantly inform us, partly at our own initiatives.

The RWS organizes meeting with the Rivierjutters, 3 time a year, where we can meet each others,

they inform us about the process development. We get information about the program, and they

facilitate our job, for example with social media, with the Facebook group.

4. What are the role and the tasks of the Rivierjutters in the RVR program?

Our main task and role is to communicate through social media about the RVR program and in

general about the river areas. It is a broad subject and we can communicate what we like of the

river areas. Some people makes only pictures about the working machines on the area, some

other about flowers, other write more over social themes...so different people, different stories!

I think we are also enthusiastic people, we are happy to be Rivierjutters so we talk to the people

that we like and they follow us, it is becoming a broad community. It is also important to show other

people what is happening in this areas. I think we are developing as a kind of ambassadors, for the

rivers but also for the Room for the River, because we feel part of the program.

91

5. Would you explain the way of collaborating between experts and residents adopted?

There is a connector figure as, e.g., volunteers? If yes, could you tell about their role?

There are some key players. These persons which we are always seeing at the meetings, for

example Jorien Douma (head of communication dep. RVR program) and Jade Wissink

(communication dep. RVR program) are the faces, the organization‟s representatives for us. They

are very enthusiastic about the Rivierjutters community and we can always call them. They wanted

to try this collaboration with the community and now they see how important it is. The members of

the RVR program set us at the map, they think about us and they support us, making us

enthusiastic about the project.

Public‟s evaluation

1. Could you estimate the level of the community‟s appreciation about the project? Is the

community proud over the work done?

Yes I think so, they like it. It is already two year that the Rivierjutters community exists, I started

since the principle, other people came later and we are all still enthusiastic, we like the project.

But there are also other points of view, for example the farmers (also Rivierjutters) who are directly

involved in the RVR program‟s process, they are not so positive about that. For them it is difficult

because their houses have to be broken down, but now they are seeing that there are good

solutions over their issues, and they accepted the change in a good way. They are part of the

decision making process. They are really in the middle of the project and we are maybe a bit

outside the decisional sphere, we are only observing.

Now it is nice to have a meeting in which we, as community, are involved too, to talk about the

future of the river areas and the project.

2. How has the Rivierjutters community and the RVR program affected the residents‟

appreciation for the local heritage? Has the program made them more aware about the

heritage in general?

I don‟t know if people living in the area see this as local heritage, because people in the area see

this as normal. The project affects the area but the residents are used to it, it is a dynamic area,

rivers always are dynamic. Rivers‟ people are used to the changes, because of the dynamic

characteristics of the river landscape. There was, twenty years ago, a big project along De Waal

area, in order to strengthen the dike; now in the same area they should create more space for the

river; they are always developing projects linked to the landscape safety. People from agricultural

background, for example, often like to keep things has they were; at the same time they also know

that it has to be done some change for safety.

I‟m from the middle of the country, that‟s an agricultural area, and the projects there have a

different nature compared to the projects around city areas, like in Nijmegen, for example.

I think that, right now, it is too soon to see if there is people‟s appreciation over the RVR program. I

think in the future with the changes done there will be this sense of appreciation; the area will be

nicer, there will be more opportunities.

92

In Tiel area, for example, the project‟s plan will delete the stream barriers (in Dutch: kribben) along

the river in order to do not have obstacles to the river‟s flood. It is for safety but people are not so

happy about that because they used to utilize these stream barriers as fishing spot, and now they

can‟t use them anymore. So that‟s not nice for them.

Final considerations

1. What is your personal opinion about the RVR program and the Rivierjutters community?

What would you definitely do again and what not?

I like both the Room for the River program and the Rivierjutters community project. Sometimes I

think, about the Room for the River program, that they invest a lot of money there and It could be

useful also in other fields like education or research.

As I said before, I‟m a physical geographer and I think it is good to give more room for the rivers. I

like the fact that we are involved in the program‟s process, the perspective of development for the

river areas, and I also like the community. I usually follow the updates of the community through

social media, I‟m not always going to the meetings, because it takes time.

What I have done as volunteer is to write stories, make photos, recreational initiatives, I post about

the river area but not technical stuffs. I would like to do more, like interviews with people, but I‟m

positive about the things I did for the Rivierjutters project.

I would like to participate more in the project and have more contact with the project‟s managers.

2. What about the future development of Rivierjutters community?

I think they could be ambassadors for the follow up of the program. Maybe Rivierjutters could be

reporters about the/other river areas projects. It could be an idea to adopt an area, follow it, and

also organize initiatives for people that are interested for, they could develop some educational

initiatives.

Those are my suggestions, I don‟t know about the future development. For this year we are still

Rivierjutters.

3. Will the Rivierjutters be further involved in the future RVR program‟s development?

I hope so, and I think so. I don‟t know really but they have to! We build up something, we have

experience, we have a network, so they can use all this for plans in the future and also for

communication about those themes.

Notes:

RWS: Rijkswaterstaat

RVR: Ruimte voor de Rivier

93

RCE: Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed (Cultural Heritage Agency of The Netherlands)

Rivierjutters: Rivercombers

Interview Ruimte voor de Rivier program

Interviewed: Jade Wissink

Coordinator team communication Ruimte voor de Rivier program

Interviewer: Maria Lucia Buccolo

Architect - Master‟s student at Reinwardt Academy, AHK - intern at RCE, afd. C&R

Date and Location: Rijkswaterstaat - Utrecht, Griffioenlaan 2 - Tuesday, 16 June 2015

Project overview

1. Could you tell about “Ruimte voor de Rivier” program? About the collaboration with the

Rivierjutters community?

My name is Jade Wissink and I‟m communication coordinator of the “Room for the River” program.

I work here with 10 people that have different functions like web master or event master or publics

affairs managers ect., and with this team we manage all the communication for the “Room for the

River” projects, which are 34 in total. RVR program is a program that consists in 34 projects in the

river regions, from Kampen to Nijmegen, to Zeeland. We work together with the Rijkswaterstaat

which is the director of the program, and we collaborate with all the municipalities, provinces, water

authorities. It is a collaboration among 17 local and regional governments, and for the

communication we also work together with all this governments, so every government has

communication specialists that report to me the communication in, for example, Nijmegen. I keep

an overview of all the projects communications managers but I don‟t have a direct HR line. Their

work there in the region not here.

Some inhabitants of two particular cities of Deventer and Nijmegen thought that our communication

was very abstract, not involving, they thought that we communicate something without listening

what people want, what they want to hear. They contacted us through email, and so they thought

why don‟t we have a vote in your communication department, why don‟t we have a voice in your

communication? So they are actually the starters of the Rivierjutters community. Starting from

considerations about the RVR newspaper Waterstand, and the lack of opinions and information

about all the regions involved, they thought: this is very send it out but we don‟t have a voice, so

why don‟t you use our stories in your communication? We, as organization, thought ok, let‟s these

two guys come to the office and let‟s have a brainstorming. How would you like to be communicate

with? Or how would you be involved in the communication? And then we came up with the

Rivierjutters strategy.

Rivierjutters comes from the word beachcombers, they actually find stuff near see, and

rivercombers find stories, so it is a little symbolic. We thought ok we are going to do it, and we

94

posted in this newspaper, the Waterstand. We were searching for rivers stories on the comb. It

was an active call to who wanted to be our Rivierjutters, and I think almost 50 people answered to

the email address. We found that half of them was more interested in the program but not to be a

Rivierjutter themselves, and 25 of them would actually participate in the network, in the community.

So we invited them to the office, I even know the exact date, the 6th of February 2014, so it is now

one and a half year, and they had a presentation from our director, Ben Broens, to tell them

something about the program, how far we had, how many project have still to be realized, which

projects have already been realized. They knew something of the program they were going to write

about, make photos about. We asked them what they want to know from us or learn to do their

things, because it is not work, they are volunteers, so it is up to them what they want to deliver. We

have actually some basic rules but it is up on their own what they want to deliver.

2. Would you explain the reasons why the Rivierjutters community‟s collaboration is born?

What is its aim and objectives?

Why the Rivierjutters community is born is actually because of those two inhabitants who thought

about our communication differently. They thought to be or do things so differently and asked us to

try. They helped us with new ideas, especially if they were from the inhabitants themselves,

because they have to be helped with our communication. It fits the aim of the organization which is

to put the stakeholders upfront. The stakeholders are the most important not the organization, so

you do it for the people of the river regions not for the Rijkswaterstaat, because we really believe to

put the stakeholders first. This fits exactly our goal with the Rivierjutters.

In our strategic communication frame, we have to report to the central government about our

program situation, the realization status of the projects, the money that we spent, ect., every half

year. Internal we have our own organization but also local governments and municipalities who

want to be seen. Every local government wants to shine with our projects but also RWS wants to

be seen in the project, so you constantly have to make decisions who is spotlight do we send, and

then we have our vision and ambition.

The vision is that not the organization but the stakeholders are most important, and the ambition

follows from the external/internal situation and the vision that we have. A lot of communities, like

contract community, civilian in the Rivierjutters community, we have got media and community etc.,

so we have all stakeholders some kind of community built, which we facilitate from the

communication department.

We have to measure and make visible what we do, we need to have people and money to realize

the communication strategies, the people for who we are communicating, make the projects for the

civilians, and then our actions. Our actions are a lot of things, one of our actions is the Rivierjutters

network. All the communication actions are directed, and our position is to let others tell the stories.

Rivierjutters is one thing but we also have longreads. It is literally a long read, in Dutch we have de

correspondent, so it is an article with a sort of theme and in that article you use others to tell your

story, for example, you use professors, water experts, or you interview a lot of people and they tell

you the story. They give talk about, for example, issues over water safety, discussions and wide

opinions about that.

We get international attention with the program, how is that arranged, for example, other

government, from e.g. Bangladesh, who came to look our country to see how we work with the

95

river widening to learn and to take it back home. We got a lot of international press interested, we

had request from the NY times, China times, Aljazeera Balkans, RAI 3 from Italy.

This is also part of the vision, to let also other media tell the story, the governmental people from

abroad who spread the word, the inhabitants and the Rivierjutters, water expert in the longreads,

so we have always others to communicate our program. Not own production with our stories but

only stories from others, we really changed the strategy of communication.

3. What is the current situation of the program? How much helpful is the support of the

Rivierjutters?

Well, I think you can see that the Rivierjutters community has a plus on the communications

because we can‟t do it without the communication from the contractors which have to inform what

actually is going on, like if there a highway being blocked because of work or they are taking safety

measures so you can bring your kids to school safely alongside the dike, or there is an information

evening from the contractors. That kind of communication has to be done by the contractors, or by

the water communities or by the governments. You cannot ask the Rivierjutters to do that because

they are volunteers, they don‟t get paid, only a little expenses covering, you know, like travel

expenses, working materials, if your photo camera is broken for example.

We get them together 3 time a year, and tomorrow there will be actually a meeting in the

Overdiepse Polder.

I think that the Rivierjutters are the eyes and the ears of the regions. You hear things from the

water authorities or the governments or from the contractors but not actually the really stuff that

they see in the working places, if for example something doesn‟t go well. The Rivierjutters instead

see everything and if there is a work that is going on and they haven‟t been informed yet, they tell

you, above all if it is not a safe situation. In this way I know something that I couldn‟t see or know

thanks to them.

It is an efficient mechanism because, for example, if you go on the Rivierjutters Facebook page

and a Rivierjutter has a question, another Rivierjutters can directly answer to the question. So

instead of go in internet or mail us and ask questions, they ask to each other in a more easy and

direct way. It is a spare of time, and time is money, even for the government, so…

This collaboration is nice, and you have extra support, because they influence other people in the

region with their stories. So it is for support, for time efficiency, because they are ears and eyes of

the region, direct issue-solution, and they make pretty pictures of the stories they are writing about.

I use their pictures for example for the formal report that goes to the government, for the minister of

the infrastructure and environment, to inform them about the progress of the program, and every

half year we have to prepare this report and the picture are from the Rivierjutters. They make pretty

pictures about the river areas and we use their pictures but for that we pay them because it is for

official documents. Not for internet because is for free use, but for official documents we pay them.

That‟s also an extra stimulation for them to make pretty pictures to get in an official document. For

us it is very handy because they make a lot and pretty pictures about the river areas every day,

instead to send a photographer everyday to the areas, it would be much more expensive. The

editors as well enjoy the fact to have a wide range of choice among the Rivierjutters pictures.

96

4. What effect this program had in social and cultural development for the rivers areas?

How did you measure it?

This program has a double goal. First goal is water safety, of course we do all these projects for

the water safety of The Netherlands, for 4 million people. The second goal is improve the spatial

quality, and that‟s one of the reasons why Room for the River is successful. For example other

projects like Noord-Zuidlijn (Metro line in Amsterdam) or Betuwe Route (trainline from the

Randstad to Belgium) which don't have that spatial quality goal to create more support for the

projects, don't finish within the scope of time and money. But Room for the River does.

This program is been captured within the scope of budget and time because of that spatial quality

goal. You can imagine that if you are the national government and the RWS is coming to you

saying that in your backyard we have to put a dike and you have to move..and if I‟m the local

government I don‟t get support for that for my own people. So to compensate that and get more

support we invented the second goal of making more spatial quality. For example if people want to

improve their own business along the riverside we provide them extra activities that we put in the

project. So you have everything for the safety but also something for the city.

The quality of the environment could be recreational, like extra cycle lines or extra fishing spots,

extra tea gardens, etc. The quality could be economical, also natural in order to improve or

compensate the natural environment.

“Room for the River” is in the final exam of geography for the secondary schools, it will stay in the

exams till 2019, and then the curriculum will change to integrate water policies, but RVR will stay

anyway part of the integrated policies because we are one of that. I think 50.000 students from

schools come with knowledge about the program.

We have community educational professionals like the guys from the Staatsbosbeheer, regional

landscape organizations, we are in all kinds of educational projects, we support and facilitate them

but we don‟t have the all school educational package. What we have realized for kids is this

newspaper Waterkids that explains in a little quiz what kind of measure we take and all those

projects. We have also a little movie, a black sheep amongst white sheep and they have 9

adventures, because we have 34 projects but 9 types of measures that we can take, like

excavating the flood plains or moving the dike or lowering the dike, moving obstacles from the

bridges etc.

We literally changed the map of The Netherlands, if you look at the map now with Google earth

and 10 years ago, you notice that is changed in all the river regions especially in the Nijmegen

because by digging an extra river arm we have now an island in De Waal that wasn‟t there even

before, so it is really a different map of The Netherlands.

In a social and cultural development context with all the special qualities that we improved the

social and cultural development improved as well also because of people that are supporting it,

writing about it, blogging, photographing; they are the real ambassadors of the program.

We did a reputation measurement in 2012 and one in 2007 and we saw that then the reputation of

the program was growing.

5. Where the funding for the program comes from?

97

This program is founded with national money, so from the national government. Sometimes

especial with the special qualities adjustments some municipalities or province give us a little bit

money extra to get it there to an higher level. So we can do only so much with the line of the

budget that we have. They are given from the national government and sometimes municipalities

decide that is okay I‟m going to plus it up with a couple of ten thousand of euro so we can get it

slighter longer fish spots or something. So sometimes are a little bit more money from the regions

but mostly for the goal of the project only covered by the national government, and that makes it

easier as well.

Strategy of public participation

1. What was the aim for the RWS to the residents‟ involvement in the RVR program?

Well without the residents‟ involvement you would have a lot more juridical procedures, because if

you don‟t involve them since the beginning you would have a lot more legal issues. If people don‟t

agree with the project they would go to the judge try to decide other ways, so they would have

procedures against us to get the support from the judges instead that from the government. That‟s

what you feel when you have to move, and you don‟t want to move, that‟s your first reaction,

because it is your house, your environment etc. and you have to move anyway, and if you don‟t

have voice in the process, like I can decide that my house come up to the dwelling mounts

(artificial hills) which we have done in the Overdiepse Polder. In that project the inhabitants

participated and we said that it must be a natural area, all the farmers had to move, like 20 farmers

were there, and they said that if we build dwelling mounts, 10 of us can stay, now they are actually

8 staying but it is ok. RWS was thinking that maybe we get more from this project if they can have

a piece of what they want, and was not more expensive than building a natural area.

As a government you have to take care of your civilians and the issue linked to move your farm, for

instance, for safety, paying for the re-building, you have to provide new home for them. Sometimes

people think that they are over-compensated but that‟s not true. Sometimes people get pretty

houses as a re-make of the old house, that‟s because if you have a farm and you have it for 20

years and then the government comes and tells you have to go away and we give you a bag of

money to go away, yeah, because that‟s what your house is worth, then you can go to the bank

and you can get a little more money to chance your all system of farming. In that case people think

that they are really well paid by the government, they got a lot more money than your house was

worth, but that‟s not true because they put a lot of extra money and efforts to move and in the

meanwhile you are in a not good situation for years. For example, if you house have to be build in

the dwelling mounts it costs you ten years, and you cannot compensate for that, it is emotional

value, and you have to imagine that people after doing to farm tasks all day, after work they had to

talk with the government representatives, because they wanted to make plan, everyday for ten

years, it costs you everything, a lot of effort.

We know people efforts so that‟s why it is important to involve them since the beginning, if you

have the plan worked out and all the processes worked out and you said to the people that here‟s

the plan and you have to move, it doesn‟t work. If people are not attached to the plan or they are

not involved with their own ideas there is not involvement at all, and doesn‟t work. In The

Netherlands we think with the inhabitants about the environment changing. It is also a matter of

money, move all the inhabitants from a land spot costs more than let a part stay there, if you have

still to build an house for them but don‟t need to search another place, which is more expensive as

98

well, and you get more support; they think with you instead against you, so that‟s saves time and

sometimes also money.

Make the difference with the other projects that we have done before, where we exceeded in time

of realization and we exceeded with the budget, if you involve people you reach the double goal,

the spatial quality improvement in time and budget planned, you can have this only with the

involvement of all stakeholders.

2. In your opinion, what were the community‟s motivations in participating in “Ruimte voor

de Rivier” program?

At one point, I think, if you know that something it is going to change in your back garden, which

mostly is, you can be against it or you can participate. A lot of people who kept their opinion being

against it, which still in this time of the program – 2015, they see around them that other people

changed in better their conditions, the plan is going on and they are still sitting in their ground,

waiting because they have the law behind them, and at the end they have to accept the change

because it is a national government decision for national safety and we can force them. The point

is that we don‟t want to force them, because we want to work with them but some don‟t, so the

motivation in on win if you are participating from the beginning you can get the most out of it,

instead of being against it because you have short throw and eventually you have to move.

That‟s the vision that they created within the years, of course not from the beginning, when they

saw that it is going to happen anyway, and we can better participate instead be against it, and for

the Rivierjutters in particular you can only have a strategy of involving civilians in this way, this

active and use their stories and you can do it only when they don‟t have nothing to win from you,

because when they still have juridical procedures, you cannot ask them to become Rivierjutters

because they can play the governments out to each other online. They can still be critical but they

don‟t have to interfere with the law. That‟s important when you start working for a program with a

community.

3. What have been the organization‟s mechanisms to involve the local residents in the

program‟s participation? Could you outline some practical methods?

First being sparring partners with the communities in the projects, the soundboard group, that‟s

one mechanism, organize community and as government speak to that speaking person of the

community. The call for action that we did trying to get the Rivierjutters to the river regions and ask

them to write about that. We had also information evenings, kitchen table conversations, we did

that with a lot of farmers because they don‟t get the local papers, we needed to have a face to face

kitchen table explaining what we are about to do and how we get their ideas in the plan, give their

ideas place in the plan if possible. One a one community to government approach. The

stakeholders were enthusiastic to write about the Rivierjutters network.

4. What have been the role and tasks of the local residents in the program‟s process?

Thinking with the government instead of against, and then have speaking persons that represent

the communities behind them. Really thinking within the borders of time and money, what you can

99

do as a person as an inhabitant of that region to make the plan better for the all community. People

see the possibilities to create something new, like the island in Nijmegen, and they are willing to

cooperate with the government. Bringing new ideas and innovations.

5. Would you explain the mechanisms of collaboration between experts and residents

adopted? There was a connector figure as, e.g., volunteers? If yes, could you tell about

their role?

The way we organized our program, we got a program directed from RWS, and we supervise and

facilitate, so we facilitate the projects to do their work well, and we supervise to keep the projects in

budgets and in time. All the projects from the municipalities and other governments, they do the

kitchen table talks, because they know our civilians at the best, we don‟t know all the people, for

example, in Nijmegen.

To keep a short line between the program and, for example, Nijmegen or other realization parts

alongside De Waal, we have the river branch managers. Those managers keep a tied line with the

project organization of Nijmegen, for instance, and the Rivierjutters. They have strategic meetings

how in Nijmegen the kitchen table conversation went, for example, and how it should go in

Deventer, and they can learn from each others. It is a quick learning process because you have

one person who provide for the all island lesson learn, for example. In this case we don‟t have

volunteers, we have special pointed governmental who do those talking, and these are called

stakeholder managers. They have all the talks with those feedback focus groups, kitchen table one

a one groups, and Rivierjutters. They are the connecting figures. River branch managers and

stakeholder managers collaborate together to learn good lessons from a successful projects and

apply to the others.

Public‟s evaluation

1. Could you estimate the level of the community‟s appreciation about the program? Are

there some rivers areas more active than others?

You could imagine that at first people appreciation was very low, and now that we are in the

finishing phase of the program, the appreciation has climbed up a couple of notches, because now

people see the beauty of some projects, and specially because of the second goal, the

improvement of the spatial quality, people now when it is been realized can see with their own

eyes how is becoming. Of course if it is visual and you got a lot of attention from NY times, or

whatsoever, you believe yourself that it is unique project that you are part of. You cannot see that

ten years ago on papers flat or in plans, that‟s logical.

The project of the river island is still there, it is the difficult one, because it is in the city area and

affects more people than in a rural area. The impact is felt more in these cities areas, because the

landscape is different and hard to change. For the rural areas there are the farmers issues of

moving their houses.

2. How has this program affected the local residents‟ appreciation for the local natural

heritage? Has the program made them more aware about the heritage in general?

100

I think that most of the residents now are seeing the beauty of the projects, not everywhere, of

course, because you cannot do the same spatial quality improvement, maybe more in certain

areas like Nijmegen. There are a lot of places where the natural or cultural spatial qualities have

really been improved, so I think that residents now they appreciated, but for some projects they

see nature disappearing because the river widening, so you get other kind of nature that it is very

flat, it is not with forest because the trees hold up the water. The nature changes, we say it is sew

with the rivers.

I think that the appreciation has improved because of the visibility now but for long time people

were really skeptical about our second goal because they couldn‟t see it.

It is a difficult question to answer because there are different point of view, but in general people

are more aware about the heritage because of the fact that if you dig on the ground you can found

object from the Roman era, or bombs of the WW2 or ancient ships, like the one we found in the

northeast part of the country, it is a middle age ship in the river bed that we have to dig and if it is

still in good condition it will be moved and preserved in Batavia, in Lelystad. So in this particular

cases people become aware about heritage that affects their environment, and makes you aware

of what country this is or was before.

Final considerations

1. What is your personal opinion about the program and collaboration with the

Rivierjutters? What would you definitely do again and what not?

I partly invented the strategy so of course I‟m very happy. I would definitively do it again, like I said

with the program that is in the realization phase, and also with the program that is about the water.

I think the connection of Dutch people with water is that strong, it is in our veins, that the river

always attracts us. We live with water, and I think that this kind of strategy to involve people that

are water related is much more easier than project for highways or train stations, for instance. The

river areas are recreational places where you can spent time not just for passing by. It is also the

type of people that are related with the rivers areas.

So yes I would do it again but only when there is no winning juridical issue, for the people, because

we can put everything behind us and we can make it visible and transparent what we are doing

because also of the Rivierjutters and then again especially with water related projects.

2. What about the future development of “Ruimte voor de Rivier” program?

We are in the finishing phase, a half way next year, so some projects have been delayed but not

that much, and in half a year we will finish them at all.

It would be nice for the future projects, for the Delta plan for example, if the Rivierjutters would be

adopted in order to give a follow up to the community. It would be an opportunities for these new

projects to be seen through the Rivierjutters eyes.

101

3. Will the local communities be further involved in the future program‟s development?

Yeah, that‟s my goal, because I really see the value of these people. It is nice because this

community is not your typical water expert, or typical professor, they are people like us, normal

people retired, looking for a job, studying, but all river funs, and that‟s what I like about this group.

All these people are so different and we learn a lot from their twitter, seeing their pictures, and

stories.

Notes:

RWS: Rijkswaterstaat

RVR: Ruimte voor de Rivier (Room for the River program)

RCE: Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed (Cultural Heritage Agency of The Netherlands)

Rivierjutters: Rivercombers

Interview Nagele landscape project

Interviewed: Anet Scholma

Director of the Buro Mien Ruys, tuin & landschapsarchitekten

Interviewer: Maria Lucia Buccolo

Architect - Master‟s student at Reinwardt Academy, AHK - intern at RCE, afd. C&R

Date and Location: Buro Mien Ruys - Amsterdam, Amstel 157 - Monday, 06 July 2015

Project overview

1. Could you tell about the landscape project for the city of Nagele?

It started 3-4 years ago, I don‟t remember exactly. They asked me to make a landscape plan for

Nagele, based on the old design, which means that when Nagele was designed, Mien Ruys, the

founder of this office, participated. She was one of the architects, she was the only woman and for

long time the only landscape architect. Late another landscape architect joined the group but she

was the landscape architect since the beginning.

Nagele is unique, it has a unique layout. It is a unique village designed from sketches on paper. It

was a group working together and they were all modernist. The green structure of Nagele, the

green is very important part for the total concept.

102

Years ago, that‟s longer ago, the RCE started together with the local government to make plans for

Nagele. Because of social problems, the houses are not big enough and modern enough in

relation to how we live now. There are a lot of houses empty, people moved away; there are no

shops, so there are many social problems in Nagele.

RCE and the local government worked together in ways to turn that down. This is a common

problem in the villages in the countryside, but Nagele is a unique village, for history and concept,

that‟s why RCE participated.

When I started, there was money from RCE and the local government available for research, for

the green part of Nagele, and for restoration plans, and that‟s what they asked me because, well, I

can redesigned Mien Ruys and make an interpretation of it. I think you should not go back to what

was made then, but know the ideas and make a new interpretation of it. That‟s how we started.

2. Would you explain the reasons why the project is born? What are its aim and objectives?

The reason why the project is born regards the social, houses and neighborhoods‟ situation of

Nagele but also it entails part of my project‟s plan.

There are 2 parts on my plan. First: research on what was the old idea, the principle idea, and how

do you translate that to modern time. There is budget to reconstruct the green. On the other hand

the way to maintain the green, that changed in 50 years and the costs that are growing. And the

total costs of yearly maintenance for all the villages, including Nagele, has to be cut down with

10%. So in the plan that I made I was aware that the costs of maintenance have to be lower. So

that‟s 2 different forces worked at the same time.

What was the most interesting part of the research was that I discovered that there is what I called

6 different way of planting that was used that I called number 1 till 6. They all play a role in how the

village was structured. There is a hierarchy. They all play their role in the design, they have

different plants, different way of using, and also different way of maintenance.

What I called number 1 is the forest which is high trees and high shrubs. They make an high wall of

green. That‟s surrounding the village and it is a wind screen that create a sort of intimacy, this is

the number 1, really important.

Number 2 is high trees the same height like in the number 1 but without the shrubs. So there are

high trees but with the visual open. They are very important in making compartment of the

residential area. And then it goes down and down and down… So number 1 and 2, the way of

using that plans are very important in the structure of the village. The lower you go in the level of

hierarchy the lower the influence. It goes from village to streets, houses and gardens. It is a very

clear and consequential way of using plants.

So regarding what I discussed till now is that the number 1 and 2 are really important, we can‟t

discuss them, they need to be kept or reconstructed, because that‟s the skeleton of the village.

So when people say: cut those high trees because they give me some shadows, that‟s not possible

because they are living in Nagele.

Number 4 for example are small trees planted without shrubs, they are lower trees like 5 till 7

meters high. They are really important in the scale of the Hof area of the houses and they are

103

enriched by berries and flowers and nice autumn leaves colors. They are smaller and with an open

view structure so the impact of the all green in the village is less. These trees, these number 4,

there were no left in Nagele nowadays. There are 2 reasons for that. One reason is that when

Nagele was designed nobody had a car, so there were no parking places designed and made no

reservation for that. Now everybody has at least one car. What they did was to take away that

green along the road and making parking places. Therefore they cut the trees number 4 and didn‟t

replace them. That‟s one reason. The other reason is that these trees don‟t live very long, like

when you have an oak tree, it can live 400-500 years, but these trees live around 50 years, and

then they get sick and die.

Nagele was built around 50-60 years ago, so that combination makes that none of those trees are

there anymore. It is part of the plan to bring back those trees in every Hof.

What I did, while I was working on the plan, is that I had some presentation in the village because it

was important for the residents. I‟m not doing this for myself, I‟m not doing this for RCE but I‟m

doing this for the people who live there. So it is very important that they accept the plan,

understanding, and be enthusiastic about it. I explained to them that on the higher level, the plants‟

types number 1 and 2, make Nagele unique, that‟s why we couldn‟t discuss on them. On the lower

levels it is their living area and then we can discuss it. So I explained them why it was important to

bring back the little trees, because Mien Ruys used them to bring season accent with spring and

autumn colors. This also to make the Hof more intimate without close it. People understand that

when you explain it.

For this reason we had workshops in different Hoven. I picked 10 small trees that are suitable for

that category and soil‟s characteristics, in order to grow healthy. So what I did was to just put on

the table print pictures of all ten type of trees. So everybody who was there got a sticker to put it on

which tree they liked the best. The one that get the most, that one we plant. Very simple but

workable, and as it always is, there are people that are shy, and there are people more willing to

talk; in this way everybody had the same voice.

Plants type number 5 is strips of shrubs, lower, also with flowers, with berries, with colorful in

winter. It is meant to be strips with colors between the houses. All those plants strips disappeared

during 50 years and it became grass with big trees. So in my plan, I said all the plants, all the

shrubs and trees that are not original we take away and make it grass, that means: really cheap in

maintenance. Maybe it is a little bit boring but, better boring and nice kept then the original shrubs

that looked terrible. And then I said that we are going to have a workshop with people of one Hof to

see if they want flowers back in their Hof.

The local government said that it was willing to pay for the delivery and the planting costs but the

people have to contribute to the maintenance, not because of costs, but to make sure that people

“adopt” the plants. This in order to engage them, to work together, to make sure that nobody is

parking in it.

The first workshop with one Hof they said that they don‟t want them, they were just fine with grass,

because they don‟t want to do anything. so they preferred to put grass. The first Hof was last year,

and then this year we went to another Hof and they said that they will try it but they wanted to know

how much work was, if it would be a bit complex, and we answered that was fine, not so

complicated. Then we didn‟t plant back the original plants but we make a modern strip with modern

plants that are easy to maintain, but give a lot of flowers.

104

So again I had different pictures with combination that were possible, and I gave again sticker to

them to choose the colors, and finally I used that in my plant scheme. They decided to start with

one strip; to find out what result it is and how much work it will need, and that‟s what they did. This

spring the first strip was planted and just one week ago I got this picture that shows that they

starting to grow and start flowering. I was there at the end of May, when it was just planted, and the

weeds were exploding; that was the official moment when the local government turned over to the

people of the Hof the responsibility of this strip. I explained them the history of the strip and what to

do to maintain it and everybody was willing to try, was sitting and helping, and they realized that

was easy to do it. Let‟s see what it is going to look like in the end of summer.

3. What is the current situation of the project?

The current situation is that my part is finished and local government is now working with it. We

made a total plan, what we called green structure plan, and local government is working on that.

They will realize it in a period of 10 years. So they started last year and this is the second year.

4. What effect has this project had in the social and cultural development for the city of

Nagele? How did you measure this effect?

No I don‟t measure anything, I just make plans. Regarding the social and cultural development we

don‟t know yet. During the process of making the plans we had few presentations, and with the

workshop we had contact with the people of one Hof. They are starting now with the work for 2

years, most people are happy because, first of all, finally something happens, because making

plans and doing research take so much time, so people are happy that finally something is done,

and when you take away all bushes and plant new trees it starts to look better, gets more open,

more fresh, so they are happy. In general people understand why things are necessary and they

except that and they are happy.

5. Where did the funding for the project come from?

The funding came partly from RCE, and partly from local government. There was a budget for this

part of revitalization of the village and the total costs of the plan are within budget.

Strategy of public participation

1. What was the aim for the City Council and the Buro Mien Ruys to involve the residents

in the Nagele‟s landscape project?

I told about this already before but I always think that it is important to be in contact with the people

who live there and listen to them, because I‟m not doing this for me, I leave and they live there so it

is always important for landscape architects, no matter what project you make, to realize that you

are working for people whose environment it is. Of course it is clear when you design a private

garden but it is the same important when you design in public space.

105

2. In your opinion, what were the community‟s motivations in participating?

Talking about the workshop, that we had, for example, there were only few people coming, and the

few people that were there, they were little enthusiastic. But you must know that, especially for the

first time, they were very skeptical, they didn‟t trust it was worth coming because they did this

before and nothing changed, so they lost faith. I think that first things have to change, have to start

and as soon as people see the results it comes the appreciation as well.

3. What have been the Buro mechanisms to involve local residents, and different

stakeholders in the project‟s participation? Could you outline some practical methods?

Like I told you already, I think it is important to give people a voice. Just be creative in thinking of

ways to do that, like I did with the pictures and the stickers. I think there are more ways to do that

but you have to think on some way. This it means two things, you must take people serious, and

you have to be really interested in their stories.

4. What have been the role and tasks of the local residents in the project‟s process?

In Nagele there is a museum, the museum works with volunteers that live in Nagele. It is really

connected with everything is going on in Nagele, so that‟s an important group. There is also a

group called Dorpsbelang, that‟s a group that usually has discussion with the people of the village

in the evening in order to see and know what is living there and what is the current problem, and

what is the questions. They are in contact with local government, so they represent the village.

There is also the GroenBrigade that is a group of volunteers as well, they take care of the

maintenance of some part of the green between shops. They have also contact with local people.

So it is most with those groups that I had contact because you cannot have contact with the whole

village and all people who live there. It is not only a matter of maintenance but also to make people

conscious and proud about their history.

5. Would you explain the mechanisms of collaboration between experts and residents

adopted? There was a connector figure as, e.g., volunteers? If yes, could you tell about

their role?

The role of volunteers is additional because the local government is responsible for the

maintenance of the village. You must never think of participation of inhabitants for saving money

because that‟s not fair, they pay already taxes to the government to take care of that, so it has

other goals like it is healthy to be outside, it is healthy to have contact with your neighbors, it is

healthy for a neighborhood when you have something that bonds you. So that are good reasons to

try to mobilize people in contribution to maintenance, that must be the goal not the money aspect.

I think that when you see how much time it costs to organize workshops, mobilize people, and to

support them, I think it is cheaper to ask a company to do it.

Public‟s evaluation

106

1. Could you estimate the level of the community‟s appreciation about the project? Are some

neighborhoods more active than others to the landscape care?

Of course that‟s always the case. There are also people that come to me saying that they would

like to help but they are too old and they cannot. There are always people that are not able to

support. There are always people in front, people that are following, and people that are lazy.

2. How has this project affected the local residents‟ appreciation for thenatural heritage?

Have you measured this appreciation? Has the project made themmore aware about the

heritage of the cityin general?

I hope so, I did my best to realize the plan. I think so, but there are always people that they don‟t

care at all. In the end I think so, especially for the groups that I mentioned before, like the museum,

the 2 organizations, they are aware. It makes them more aware and proud of what Nagele is. They

understand and they can answer questions for other people, so I think it becomes better.

Final considerations

1. What is your personal opinion about the landscape project for Nagele? What would you

definitely do again and what not?

For me it was really a special project especially because of the search back in time. I didn‟t know

Nagele very well before I started. I became very enthusiastic about the so smart and simple

ingredients, and well consequently executed, I was really amazed. It has been a nice research

back in time, and in the meanwhile I found things typical of Mien Ruys but also things that have

been compromised because working in a group, that was interesting. It has been of course very

challenging to make a translation to make that from the original plan to modern time. What I really

love to do is to try to tell it to people, even if there are only 1 or 2 picked up and understand my

plan, I‟m very happy. I like to bring down things where they belong. That‟s for me the only way to

make it work and last, and I started to love Nagele.

2. What about the future development of the project?

I don‟t know, because my job is finished. I‟m still waiting to know about the development of the

project.

3. Will the local communities be further involved in the future project‟s development?

I don‟t know as well, because I‟m just one little part in the total process of the revitalization of

Nagele. I know that they are working on plans for redesigning the entrance of the village to build a

new supermarket with houses, and make plans for the all strips for the shops, and they asked

other landscape architects to make them, to design it. I feel a little sorry but I understand of course.

They want for the total Nagele‟s project a multiple vision, so from different landscape studios. So

this is the framework and within the framework we go on.

107

Notes:

RCE: Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed (Cultural Heritage Agency of The Netherlands)

Interview Rescue Public Murals initiative

Interviewed: Will Shank

Independent conservator and curator, Barcelona, Spain. Former head of

conservation of San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, US (1990-2000).

Interviewer: Maria Lucia Buccolo

Architect - Master‟s student at Reinwardt Academy, AHK - intern at RCE, afd. C&R

The interview has been carried out through email.

RPM overview

1. Could you tell about the initiative “Rescue Public Murals”?

The initiative was born in 2006 in response to a perceived need in the conservation field, and

following upon a symposium called “The Mural in the Americas” at the Getty Conservation Institute

and the Getty Research Institute in 2003.

2. Would you explain the reasons why the initiative is born? What are its aim and objectives?

You can see the description of the program at the website:

http://www.heritagepreservation.org/RPM/

Briefly stated, our mission has been to bring attention to the community murals of the United States

and to initiate and support efforts to save them.

3. What is the current situation of the initiative?

With the closing this year of Heritage Preservation, the RPM program is being given a new life in

new forms. Its content will soon reside with the American Institute for Conservation of Historic and

Artistic Works of Art (AIC) in Washington, DC.

4. What effect has this initiative had in the social and cultural development of the several

communities in US? How did you measure this effect?

108

Local funding…

5. Where did the funding for the initiative come from?

Generous funding has supported the operations of RPM since its inception. It has come from the

Getty Foundation, the Booth Family Foundation, the Andrew Wyeth Foundation, the National

Endowment for the Arts and others. Local funding for preservation efforts is identified by the

communities whose murals are endangered.

Strategy of public participation

1. What was the aim for the Heritage Preservation regarding the residents‟ involvement in

the “Rescue Public Murals” initiative?

Local committees were established in order to identify an important mural, to raise awareness of its

conservation needs and to organize fund-raising. The projects were self-identifying at the local

level.

2. In your opinion, what were the community‟s motivations in participating?

3. What have been the HP‟s mechanisms to involve local residents, and different

stakeholders in the initiative‟s participation? Could you outline some practical methods?

Local communities were motivated to save a painted wall that represented an important aspect of

the community‟s life or history. Stakeholders include owners of the building where the mural is

painted, artists, activists, and other community members, as well as potential funders for

conservation efforts. Each case is different and is generated by the local stakeholders, using

available resources.

4. What have been the role and tasks of the local residents in the projects‟ process?

On a practical level, those tasks would include delving into the history of the mural, its inception, its

creation, its maintenance. On a social level, gathering information about its relevance to the

community that lives with it every day and is concerned about its welfare.

5. Would you explain the mechanisms of collaboration between experts and residents

adopted? There was a connector figure as, e.g., volunteers? If yes, could you explain their

role?

Conservators have played the role primarily of experts in materials and their use, both regarding

the creation of outdoor paintings and also of their preservation. Working with members of the

community, including the artist herself and/or representatives of the muralist, the well-informed

conservator can effectively take on the role of coordinator of preservation activities.

109

Public‟s evaluation

1. Could you estimate the level of the community‟s appreciation about the initiative? Are

some communities murals more active than others?

2. How has this initiative affected the local residents‟ appreciation for the cultural heritage?

Have you measured this appreciation? Has the initiatives made them more aware about

the heritage in general?

The project in Harlem to save Eva Cockcroft‟s mural was embraced by the community who had

lived with the mural and who missed it when it disappeared. You can find a full description of the

intervention at this link: http://www.heritagepreservation.org/RPM/archive6.html

The project was enormously successful and enlivened a park whose value to the community was

enhanced immeasurably by the revived mural. The presence of the preservation team, whose

work was coordinated by an artist and a conservator, certainly made the community more aware of

heritage issues vis-à-vis the Cockcroft mural.

Final considerations

1. What is your personal opinion about the initiative “Rescue Public Murals”? What would

you definitely do again and what not?

It is one of the greatest accomplishments of my long career. I think that our efforts have guided a

new branch of the conservation profession.

I‟d have to think about that one, but I have no regrets.

2. What about the future development of RPM initiative?

We will continue to develop our valuable Best Practices advice, and will work with allied

organizations like Voices of Contemporary Art and the Foundation of the American Institute for

Conservation to create opportunities for collaborations between working artists and conservators.

3. Will the local communities be further involved in the future initiative‟s development?

Absolutely. Community involvement is key to the success of the Rescue Public Murals initiative.

Notes:

RCE: Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed (Cultural Heritage Agency of The Netherlands)

HP: Heritage Preservation, Washington DC, USA.

RPM: Rescue Public Murals initiative

110

Interview Preservation of Outdoor Painted Sculpture in Québec

Interviewed: Stéphanie Gagné

Sculpture conservator, Centre de conservation du Québec (CCQ)

with the consultation of Delphine Laureau1, sculpture conservator, and Monique Benoît, metal and stone conservator, CCQ

Interviewer: Maria Lucia Buccolo

Architect - Master‟s student at Reinwardt Academy, AHK - intern at RCE, afd. C&R

The interview has been carried out through email.

Project overview

1. Could you tell about the project Preservation of Outdoor Painted Sculpture in Québec?

Note: a great part of the information found in this interview was published in “Preservation of

Outdoor Painted Sculpture in Quebec”, Proceedings from the Interim Meeting of the Modern

Material and Contemporary Art Working Group of ICOM-CC (Otterlo), June 4-5 2013, Los Angeles,

The Getty Conservation Institute, p.131-138, by Stéphanie Gagné and Monique Benoît.

First, here is a brief overview of the Centre de conservation du Québec (CCQ) where the

“Preservation of Outdoor Painted Sculpture” (POPS) was developed by conservators. Founded in

1979, the CCQ is a provincially funded conservation centre attached to the Quebec Ministry of

Culture and Communications (MCC). Our mission is to contribute to the preservation and

conservation of Quebec‟s cultural heritage, including artifacts, artworks, public art, and

architectural elements.

The project “Preservation of Outdoor Painted Sculpture” is part of a larger movement of preserving

public art through preventive conservation, maintenance, and conservation treatments. Because of

the widespread installation of public art in the province of Quebec (around 3 300 public artworks

province-wide, of which 1300 outdoor painted sculptures (OPS)), the CCQ has developed a series

of tools in response to the overwhelming demand for technical information and to raise public

awareness about preventive conservation. Among these are the web-based tools, and the pilot

programs for artists and for municipalities.

One of these web-based tools is the free, downloadable guide about public art, Guide pour la

conservation des oeuvres d’art public. This guide is geared towards artists, collections managers

and any person involved in the process leading to the artworks achievement, and touches on all

aspects of public art: from conception to realization to installation and finally maintenance. The

information and recommendations found in this guide are helpful for the preservation of public OPS

in particular and of public art in general.

1 Laureau, Delphine and Bouchard, René. 2015. « Expertise, concertation et réalisations : l‟expérience du Centre de Conservation du Québec (CCQ) ».CeROArt [online] 10. Accessed April 9, 2015, at http://ceroart.revues.org/4495.

111

In collaboration with the MCC, a pamphlet of best practices for the sustainability of the artworks

was elaborated and is also available online. This publication follows the Guide pour la conservation

des oeuvres d’art public and contains more developed content, in particular the role and

responsibilities of key stakeholders.

Concerning the pilot programs, the provincial government has funded initiatives wherein CCQ

professionals are made available free of charge to certain clienteles. Within this framework,

conservators are able to provide consultations to artists, and collections managers (usually over

the phone or via email).

2. Would you explain the reasons why the project is born?

The overall preservation of public art project was elaborated over the years in response to the

numerous demands from our clients who were concerned about the preservation and the

maintenance of their collections. The first large undertaking resulted from the Société de transport

de Montréal (STM). STM owns a significant collection of artworks: 85 works localized in 68 subway

stations. The CCQ has been collaborating with the STM for more than 10 years on different

conservation projects. In 2004, the STM did not know how to process with their collection and how

to preserve and maintain it. The STM then contacted the CCQ for having some help. The CCQ

proposed a global approach, which consisted in the establishment of a maintenance plan over

several years.

Along the years, more demands were addressed to the CCQ, in particular from municipalities

owning significant outdoor artworks collections, and dealing with the same issue of preservation.

The CCQ has developed specific collaborations with them by offering a similar approach offered to

the STM. Seven successful collaborations have been developed since 2009 because of pilot

projects between the CCQ and municipalities. These municipalities are Trois-Rivières, Sherbrooke,

Saguenay, Gatineau, Victoriaville, Chaudière-Appalaches region and Abitibi-Témiscamingue

region (Cree First Nation communities). To meet the demand, it was planned that each pilot project

was granted of 100 hours of conservation services and training seminars for municipal employees.

While not all cities are able to benefit from the pilot project agreement, Montreal, Quebec City, and

Longueuil have taken the initiative to engage the CCQ to carry out similar conservation projects for

their collections outside of the parameters of a pilot project.

What are its aim and objectives?

In general, through these educative tools, the CCQ aims to get the public being involved in

preventive conservation. Because all materials deteriorate both naturally and because of

vandalism, regular and repeated treatments are required for the preservation of public art. It is

physically impossible for conservators to treat each artworks across the province: budgets are

limited and the outdoor work period in Quebec is short. These factors further complicate the

already challenging reality that is the conservation of public art.

The Web-based tools:

These publications aim to make public art more durable:

- by sensitizing, informing and equipping participants in projects from conception to realization to

installation.

112

- by proposing appropriate maintenance measures for the conservation of newly installed or

existing works.

The pilot programs:

- For artists:

One of the CCQ‟s objectives was to be involved with new public art projects from their inception.

The goal was to encourage relationships between conservators and artists, making them aware of

the conservation services available to them, and assisting them in their decision making process,

free of charge.

- For municipalities:

The first objective was to encourage our municipal partners to invest in the preservation and the

conservation of their collections. The second objective was to implement preventive conservation

strategies into existing public maintenance programs.

3. What is the current situation of the project?

The broad preservation of public art project is ongoing and successful. Since 2009, the

CCQ:

- intervened with 62 municipalities in Quebec,

- has provided more than 9,200 hours of service

- offered consulting services (57%), conservation treatments (30%) and training (12%).

- has developed its range of services and mandated a professional to act as a "municipalities

respondent". This later accompanies the clienteles in defining their needs and offers a suitable

response.

For example, Quebec City just provided and authorized the resources, and signed the contract for

the maintenance of 45 outdoor sculptures. Other municipalities are actively making efforts to

implement preventive conservation strategies and changing their maintenance procedures as a

result of their collaboration with the CCQ.

Artists continue to call or write e-mail asking for technical information on materials and techniques

of construction (stability, deterioration process, maintenance, fastening and anchoring system, etc.)

for new artwork projects. The guide about public art is continually evolving and new articles are

being written, among them one on artworks made of plastics and polymers.

4. What effect has this project had in the social and cultural development for the Québec

provinces? How did you measure this effect?

Increasingly the CCQ is called upon to address the preventive conservation of public art, and with

the availability of these tools and strategies, we are better able to assist collections managers,

owners and artists, amongst others, to make informed decision about their collections. Both for

public interest and artistic integrity, great efforts have been done to implement preventive

conservation strategies into existing public maintenance programs.

CCQ noted that the demands from the clientele are done more rapidly and clienteles do not wait

the sculptures are too deteriorated before asking for advices or conservation treatments. The

demands, for example, to remove graffiti are formulated sooner after the vandalisms are done.

113

This help to remove more easily the graffiti from the substrate and to reduce the risk associated

with damaging this later. Also, we have seen that collections managers realize the importance of

applying a protective coating such as a sacrificial antigraffiti coating on porous stone or wax on

bronzes.

As a direct and measurable result of preventive conservation, we have seen – from empirical

observations - an increase in the life span of public art in general and of OPS in particular, and

often a decrease in the cost of conservation treatment when it finally becomes necessary. The

collaboration between artists and conservators has reduced long-term conservation problems in

public art and addressed public safety concerns. We have had a very positive response from

artists, who are thrilled to have input on “best practices” to ensure the longevity of their works.

5. Where did the funding for the project come from?

The funding is part from the provincial government of Quebec and part from the services fees

charged to the clienteles.

Strategy of public participation

1. What was the aim for the CCQ to involve the residents in the Preservation of Outdoor

Painted Sculpture project?

Currently, the CCQ is consulted for the renewal of the Cultural Policy of Quebec to focus on citizen

participation (as said previously, the CCQ reports to the Ministry of Culture and Communications).

In this case, the involvement of the CCQ aims to inform the government on the place, the role and

the importance of public art in Quebec's cultural and social landscape. Its recommendations focus

on the broader vision of public art that combines elements of artistic creation to that of the

sustainability and the conservation of the works.

That has been said, the preservation of public art project, including POPS project, was not

addressed directly to the residents. It is geared towards artists and collections managers, and any

person involved in the process leading to the artworks achievement or to its maintenance.

More precisely, this project is useful to:

- any participant in the realization of a public art project

- any person in charge of the maintenance of public art works

- the maintenance personnel of a building or a public site

- the artists

- the owners of the art work or the collection

- the administrators of public art programs

- the architects and the engineers

- the conservators and other specialists involved in public art

2. In your opinion, what were the community‟s motivations in participating?

In our experience, the people who reach out to the CCQ are interested in expanding their

knowledge base in order to increase the longevity of their works of art or their

collections. Additionally, collections managers and municipalities are also searching for ways to

optimize their financial and human resources.

114

3. What have been the CCQ‟s mechanisms to involve local residents, and different

stakeholders in the project‟s participation? Could you outline some practical methods?

The CCQ provides:

- the hours of free consulting and training for municipal employees

- the hours of free consulting for artists

- different online tools, such as:

- the Guide pour la conservation des oeuvres d’art public, where tips are given on the choice of

materials, of localization, on the protection of a works of art from, for example, water leaks, climate

and pollutants, vegetation, vandalism and accidental damages

- Preserv‟Art, a bilingual web-based materials database in the field of preventive conservation, and

- the Visual Glossary of Deteriorations. These free, web-based tools were developed to assist

collections managers, archivists, curators, conservators, artists, museum technicians, etc.

- different theoretical and practical training to municipal employees, collections managers and

artists.

Additionally, via the pilot programs, the CCQ proposes to evaluate the municipal collections of

works of art in order to establish a maintenance plan over several years. A team of conservators

can do a collection survey containing a detailed condition report for each works of art examined. A

list of global treatments priorities for their collection can be prepared along with a maintenance

schedule. A hand-out describing simple tasks that can be carried out by employees, and an

example of a maintenance log sheet can also be provided. Moreover, the employees can be

trained to carry out condition checks and records on site with their own collections as reference

material.

Maintenance recommendations made to the clients include rinsing sculptures with water, cutting

grass carefully, installing barriers between the grass and the sculptures, pruning trees, installing

gravel at the sculpture base to improve drainage or installing winter protection and snow fences to

reduce damages from snow blowers, de-icing salts and snow ploughs.

On another hand, the provincial government created a special program to financially help owners

in the conservation and delocalization of works of art made in the context of the “politique du 1%” 2.

4. What have been the role and tasks of the local residents in the project‟s process?

As previously said, our project is not addressed directly to local residents, except if they are part of

the artwork achievement (from conception to realization to installation and maintenance).

2 In 1961, the provincial government of Quebec implemented a policy of integrating art into architecture and the environment, commonly referred to as the “Politique du 1%”. Under this policy, each time a public building is constructed or undergoes significant renovation, 1% of the total construction budget is spent on artwork. This policy is still in effect.

115

5. Would you explain the mechanisms of collaboration between experts and residents

adopted? There was a connector figure as, e.g., volunteers? If yes, could you tell about

their role?

If the residents are part of the artwork achievement (for example, municipal employees) they could

benefit from presentations and practical trainings on site. The CCQ conservators have delivered

over the last years advices, and sometimes up to two days of practical and theoretical training in

more than 60 cities in Quebec. Until now there has been no voluntary involved in the project.

Public‟s evaluation

1. Could you estimate the level of the community‟s appreciation about the project? Are some

municipalities more active than others?

The community‟s appreciation about the project can be estimate through some observations.

Issues of good conservation of public art go - for clienteles – from improving the quality of life to

financial savings, through an independency in the resource management. Increasingly aware of

these challenges, municipalities are increasing their investments in the field of culture and heritage

and are increasingly using the services of the CCQ.

There are municipalities that are more active than others depending on their financial and human

resources.

2. How has this project affected the local residents‟ appreciation for the cultural heritage?

Have you measured this appreciation? Has the project made them more aware about the

heritage in general?

By giving presentations and providing training to municipal employees, we have seen that they

become more conscious of the importance of preserving public art. When individuals understand

the impact of their actions, they are more aware and often proud to be part of the maintenance

team. They develop a feeling of ownership after investing their time and efforts in the conservation

of artworks. Conservators have also found that when the maintenance plans are simple and

straightforward, there is a better chance that they will be followed.

The artists, through the free hours of consultation offered to them, gain in valuable technical

knowledge. Some of the most sought after information relates to materials stability and

compatibility, fabrication techniques, surface preparation and paint systems. This knowledge

guides them in their choice of materials and techniques, and provides some assurance about the

longevity of their work over time. This is certainly attractive to the owner‟s collection.

Final considerations

1. What is your personal opinion about the project Preservation of Outdoor Painted

Sculpture? What would you definitely do again and what not?

Public art collections in Quebec, including OPS, benefit when their caretakers have access to the

on-line tools; the hours of free consulting for artists, and the hours of free consulting and training

for municipal employees provided by the CCQ. The public is now better equipped to actively

116

participate in the preservation of public art and know when to contact appropriate professionals,

including conservators.

For the proper preservation and conservation of public art, communication and exchanges

between the various stakeholders who are involved in the realization or in the maintenance of the

work of art and its environment are essential and central to the project. This issue needs to be

stressed.

Although the CCQ has successfully collaborated with municipal employees for several years,

conservators remain aware that there is still a point that bears consideration. Part of these pilot

projects is training non-specialist to treat works of art. On one hand, a key benefit of these

programs is that they provide at least a minimum of training to the people who are likely to treat the

works of art regardless of their training (cleaning, fixing, painting, etc.). Many municipalities or

public institutions do not have a staff dedicated to the maintenance of their works of art. It is

common to find inadequate or inappropriate treatments carried out by well-meaning individuals

who lack specialized training. For those places that do have a maintenance team, CCQ has seen

that the members of the team are often changing due to high employee turnover. In these

situations, collections maintenance knowledge is rarely transferred from one employee to another.

The importance of planning regular training sessions and record keeping should be stressed.

On the other hand, this brings up a certain ethical dilemma. There are always risks associated with

conservation treatment, but even more so when we as conservators provide advice to non

conservators. Some tasks are delicate and well-intentioned individuals can damage a painted

surface just by, for example, over-cleaning the sculpture with pressured water. However, when

there are too many works of art to betreated by professional conservators, choices have to be

made. At CCQ we feel that knowledge empowers the owners of public art. By providing preventive

conservation tools, safe and easy to follow maintenance protocols, we are able to help minimize

the damage caused by improper treatments and ultimately prolong the life of public art.

2. What about the future development of the project?

The preservation of public art passes through a mastery of good conservation practices. The CCQ

provides this support to their clienteles and is part of its mission. To reach these clienteles, the

CCQ is present in municipal conferences, on social networks and provides specialized or public

conferences. The project is under development.

At the MCC, the CCQ is responsible for one of the actions of the "plan d‟action ministériel de

développement durable " 2013-2015 that aimed at strengthening the conservation and the

enhancement of cultural and scientist heritage. The services and the tools developed by the CCQ

provide support to communities in an approach focused on the development, the preventive

conservation and the conservation of cultural heritage. For the period 2015-2020, it was

recommended that this should be extended.

3. Will the local communities be further involved in the future project‟s development?

Accompanying clients for the preservation of public art passes through the acquisition of good

maintenance practices by the owner, the community stakeholders and the citizen. The local

communities are and will be in all cases involved in this project.

117

Notes:

CCQ: Centre de conservation du Québec (Centre of Conservation of Québec)

RCE: Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed (Cultural Heritage Agency of The Netherlands)

POPS: Preservation of Outdoor Painted Sculpture in Québec

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank all the professionals involved in the “Heritage in Use” project for their support

on my research work.

I would also like to thank all the people that have participated to the interviews for their willingness,

motivation and their contribution that has enriched my research work.

118

References

Belgian chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. Cultural heritage in

the 21st century for living better together. Towards a common strategy for Europe. Namur: 6th

conference of Ministers responsible for Cultural Heritage, 22-24 April 2015. Print

Blom, Anita. Nieuw groen. RCE publication. Kade met karakter, n. 2, 2015. Cover. Print

CCQ. Guide de conservation des oeuvres d’art public. Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du

Québec, 2015. p. 1-30. Print

Council of Europe. Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for

Society. Faro: Website Cultural Heritage, 27 October 2005. Print

Gagné, Stéphanie and Monique Benoit. Preservation of Outdoor Painted Sculpture. Proceedings

from the Interim Meeting of the Modern Material and Contemporary Art Working Group of

ICOM-CC. Otterlo, 4-5 June 2013. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute. p.131-138.

Print

Laanjr., Reint. Responsibilities of local authorities and citizens’ participation, in: Council of Europe.

European Architectural Heritage Year-1975. Amsterdam: Congress on the European

Architectural Heritage, 21-25 October 1975. Report, theme 2. Print

Lynch, Bernadette. Whose cake is it anyway?. London: Paul Hamlyn Foundation, 2011. Print

National Institute for the Conservation of Cultural Property. Save Outdoor Sculpture! handbook

volunteer. Washington: Palatino, 1992. 1-20. Print

Platform57. Collectie Escamp – een introductie. The Hague: Platform57, 2014. Print

Sani, Margherita. Participatory governance of cultural heritage. European Expert Network on

Culture, ad hoc question. March 2015. Print

Scholma, Anet. Nagele. Monumenten, n.10, October 2014. p. 14-17. Print

Wood, Alfred. Responsibilities of local authorities and citizens’ participation, in: Council of Europe.

European Architectural Heritage Year-1975. Amsterdam: Congress on the European

Architectural Heritage, 21-25 October 1975. Report, theme 2. Print