What Should Penang do about it ?

Recently, Penang State was hit by a whirlwind of troubles days before receiving the recognition to become one of the heritage site of the world. This is an article that I manage to found related to the issue.

Heritage at stake: Unesco status or high rise dilemma for Penang

By ANDREA FILMER

GEORGE TOWN: The state government has found itself in a catch 22 situation – jeopardise George Town’s Unesco World Heritage Site status or run the risk of being sued for hundreds of millions by developers.

The crisis centres on the building of four high-rise hotels in the heritage core and buffer zones which violate the guidelines approved by the World Heritage Committee (WHC).

An artist’s impression of the Rice Miller boutique hotel which will be built in Weld Quay, George Town. It is one of four projects to be carried out in the island’s heritage zone, a move that could threaten Penang’s World Heritage Site listing.

Under stringent heritage guidelines sent to the committee in August 2007, a maximum height of 18m or roughly five storeys was set for new buildings in the two zones.

“The guidelines were not made widely known when they were first put in place. Only when George Town’s Unesco status was approved did we realise the guidelines,” Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng said after a dialogue session with the Heritage Steering Committee’s

Advisory Panel yesterday.“Now, we’re caught in a conundrum. If we allow the buildings to go ahead, we may risk the status, but if we stop the buildings, we could be sued for hundreds of millions which will definitely bankrupt the local council.

“We’re damned if we do, and damned if we don’t.”

The four hotels are the Rice Miller boutique hotel in Weld Quay and the Boustead Royale Bintang Hotel project behind the General Post Office in Lebuh Downing, both lying in the heritage core zone, and the E&O Hotel extension and 23-storey hotel in Jalan Sultan Ahmad Shah by the Low Yat Group in the buffer zone, both of which will be 84.4m high.

Lim said three of the four hotels were approved by the previous state administration while the Boustead building was approved on June 26, less than two weeks before the Unesco status was granted.

He said the state was now looking to the Culture, Arts and Heritage Ministry for direction.

“Although the state wants to take active measures to alleviate the problem, we cannot plunge in recklessly. The legal situation has to be studied carefully and it does not seem to favour us.”

Unesco regional adviser for the Asia-Pasific Dr Richard Engelhardt, who was present at the dialogue, said George Town had no choice but to follow the guidelines approved by the WHC.

“When the status is approved, the guidelines trump all previous existing regulations. Why would you apply for the status if there was no intention of following the guidelines?

“If the state decides to go along with the high-rises, I’m sure it will be called up by the WHC to explain why it allowed such a thing and whether it is compatible with the preservation of heritage,” he said.

“The worst-case scenario is that George Town is delisted, but that is not the usual situation as when a site applies for World Heritage status, it is interested in preserving the heritage,” he added. -the end-

From the above article, we can see that someone in the state planning department didn't do their work well. If Penang State is trying to apply for the status, the state government should had been very stringent when approving development of this sorts that might goes against the heritage site guidelines from the very 1st day when the state is applying for the title.

But we can't put all the blame on the state government alone because UNESCO should had been well aware of all the on going development before declaring George Town as a world heritage site, and if they had known the on-going development from the beginning and still go ahead with the issuing of heritage site title to G.Town, one can really smell something fishy going on!

And we all should also feel curious about why G.Town suddenly receive the UNESCO Heritage Site Title right after the change of state government administrative. The previous administrative had applied for the title years ago, back then G.Town wasn't in such a sorry state that it was now. (congested with cars, reduced number of residents and commercial usage, large number of vacant buildings, what kind of heritage are we talking about when there are no tradisional commercial activities and sociol-economy). If we do the comparison, Penang State should had obtain the title years ago and not now. This leave us with a very big question, "Why G.Town can obtain the title and based on what sorts of heritage that was left ?"

If we observe clearly, we can see that all the site that are been proposed to be developed are all sites that are all long vacant and requires large amount of funding to rebuild them, if all the private investor is going to invest and inject new economic growth into G.Town, I personally feel that it is going to benefit Penangnites more ! compared to the World Heritage Title. But if both can work seamlessly together then it will really spruce up G.Town tourism industry and that will really benefit everyone.

Therefore, I think the best solution to the problem of contradicting with heritage guidlines is to have both parties sit down and talk about the problem, and attempt to obatin some kind of waiver for this badge of already approved development and try to work with the architects, planners and especially the local residents that are directly involved in this heritage zone to reduce the impact of this new development to the heritage zones.

Criticism of participatory planning processes

(The following statements are concluded from a case study conducted as part of the Interreg IIIB project MECIBS (Medium Sized Cities in Dialogue Around the Baltic Sea) )

In Finland, the Land Use and Construction Act from 2000, making participatory processes obligatory in a range of planning activities, has been criticized from the land use planners’ point of view. As these critical points are common among the Baltic Sea states, a review of criticism by Finnish planners is also valuable outside Finland.

Although the criticism may largely be based on recent changes in the planning profession, planners in the MECIBS cities seem somewhat puzzled by this new legal obligation.

Hidden agenda?

According to the Finnish interviewees, the new Act offers good opportunities for residents and other stakeholders to appeal against plans. However, appeals are not necessarily direct and honest, but have a hidden agenda.

Now, environmental issues can serve as potentially useful arguments that have strong backing and acceptance from the EU. The hidden agenda behind the apparent environmental argument might be solely economic, protecting only private objectives.

The Finnish interviewees in the MECIBS project observed that the Finnish law might provide a tool for unjustifiably slowing down the processes. It is also suspected that it might be difficult to get people interested in planning and plans. Fears of potential negative effects of planning will often trigger responses (appeals) to plans. This reactive way of responding is not a constructive mode of participation.

How to increase participation?

It is possible that residents regard participation as political action, or at least political in terms of its substance, which may lessen their enthusiasm.

Residents seem reluctant to participate until they have a problem or a personal interest arising from land ownership, for example. In addition, the weakest residents do not generally take part in participatory processes, yet planning should somehow incorporate their point of view.

Herein lays a very important question:

• how to get residents to participate?
  
• How to make residents see that it is to their advantage to participate, even though their personal (economic) interest might not be strong?
  
• Another question is, is it necessary to attract more participation?
• Where participatory processes are truly needed, where can they only make the process more difficult?
  

One interviewee saw a connection between the lack of trust in the political system and the lack of interest in participation. Many interviewees emphasized the need to find ways to promote constructive participation.

However, residents cannot always be constructive in their participation, because plans or alternatives are presented that are more or less decided beforehand. When residents are not provided with ways to be constructive from the outset, responses tend to be reactions to already decided alternatives.

A reactive response pattern seems to be more "natural", because they are not used to civic responsibility. Experiences like the Viitannummi case show that, provided with the right tools, a constructive participatory process can be created. An alternative suggested by one interviewee would be people chosen by city representatives meeting with representatives of a local residents’ organisation. Large mass meetings were considered good at the beginning of a clear (planning, development) project, but subsequently the participation should be more organised according to some interviewees.

As opposed to a broad field of residents, an organised residents’ association would help city officials to attract actors. Representative action by way of associations has not been very popular historically at least in Kokkola and Salo. According to the interviewees, everyone just wants to represent themselves. Distrust of decision makers and city officials is widespread. The interviewees seemed in general to regard the problem of creating wider collaboration and participation as a task for the future. They also thought it was one potential way to gather useful ideas to make better decisions.

Strategy-making

Criticism towards collaboration in strategymaking has usually been caused by a kind of "abstraction gap" between the concrete interests of local residents and the sometimes abstract (as perceived by residents) objectives of various strategy papers. There is a perceived difficulty in attracting interest in ideas at the strategic level. The operationalisation of strategy objectives would be one way of rendering strategy-making more concrete for residents.

What is the communicative turn for Public Participation?

What is the communicative turn?

In the 1970s, the communicative aspects of planning began gaining in importance as the recognition of differences in the identity and knowledge base of people became a central issue. This change has been called a communicative turn in planning.

The recognition that all forms of knowledge are socially constructed, that individuals and institutions have different interests and power relations; all these are relevant to communicative planning theory. The turn towards communicative planning was a reaction to earlier comprehensive, rationalistic and technocratic planning theories, predominant in the 1950s and 1960s, which drew on reason and scientifically constructed empirical knowledge. The change was from all-knowing systematized planning to mediating planners.

Theory and practice

It has been argued that this turn has been theoretical rather than real-life and that planning still follows the old paths. In addition, perceptions of the role of the urban planner or city administration in general have changed. Earlier, planning was seen as a non-political activity, but today, planning activities are considered political and involving power. Currently, the differing interests and power relations of NGOs and businesses, for example, are self-evident in most processes.

Pro et contra

Communicative planning has also been criticized. Some critics say that it is not possible to have a communicative planning process in land-use or strategy merely by increasing communication between stakeholders or promoting public participation. (For example, people define a good living environment in differing ways: some prefer an urban, others a more rural setting, to be very simplistic. It can be a catalyst for communication, but can it produce better decisions?)

The current trend is to increase the opportunities for participation almost everywhere. Planners believe that a participatory process lessens future problems and complaints as the civil society is more involved in formulating decisions.

Human Capital

There has been much discussion about the communicative aspects of spatial and economic planning. This aspects reflects the changes of local economies and society towards open, globally reaching relationships and increasing concerns for local environments.

The human and social capital of urban inhabitants is an vital potential for revitalization (especially in terms for restructuring an already established urban city).

George Town requires much more public participatory planning then never before due to the newly awarded UNESCO Heritage Site.

With the increasing public participation it had becomes an efficient tool for avoiding social exclusion which is always the main concern when related to restructuring local economies and unemployment.

New innovative methods and processes are required to realize the potential for public participatory urban planning, it is also necessary not to neglect the "Silent group" (Children, youth, elderly people, people of minority ethnic origins.)

Public Participatory planning processes need resources: time, organization effort, communication and clear commitment from all the involved actors.

Public Participatory planning processes provide opportunities for directly influencing decision-making. Traditionally, representative democracy (resident vote for their representative to help protect and assist them)

You choose so that they can choose for You.

and the more direct public participatory democracy, where residents directly communicate with decision makers or planners offer different opportunities. A common practice in smaller municipalities is direct commenting (suitable for smaller urban area that involves lesser amount of actors).

Urban Planners from local authorities discussing planning strategies with public representative.

These different and perhaps new channels of co-operation between a city and its residents
contrast with the current situation, where administration takes place between the city council, representing the older representative democracy, and direct feedback from residents.

What does Public Participatory Planning means.

Public Participatory planning is an urban planning paradigm which emphasizes involving the entire community in the strategic and management processes of urban planning or community-level planning processes, urban or rural. It is often considered as part of community development processes.

Origins

In the UN Habitat document Building Bridges Through Participatory Planning, Fred Fisher, president of the International Development Institute for Organization and Management, identifies Participatory Reflection And Action (PRA) as the leading school of participatory planning.

He identifies Paulo Freire and Kurt Lewin as key pioneers, as well as claiming planning fathers Patrick Geddes and Lewis Mumford as participatory planners. Freire’s belief that poor and exploited people can and should be enabled to analyze their own reality was a fundamental inspiration for the participatory planning movement. Lewin’s relevance lay in his integration of democratic leadership, group dynamics, experiential learning, action research and open system theory, and his efforts to overcome racial and ethnic injustices.

In general PRA has been supplanted by Participatory Learning and Action (PLA), which emphasizes the links between the participatory process and action. Related work has been done on community-based participatory research (CBPR).

Principles

Robert Chambers, whom Fisher considered a leading icon of the movement, defines PRA according to the following principles;

• Handing over the stick (or pen or chalk): facilitating investigation, analysis, presentation and learning by local people themselves, so they generate and own the outcomes and also learn.
• Self-critical awareness: facilitators continuously and critically examine their own behavior.
• Personal responsibility: taking responsibility for what is done rather than relying, for instance, on the authority of manuals or on rigid rules.
• Sharing: which involves the wide range of techniques now available, from chatting across the fence to photocopies and e-mail.

Methods

PRA and PLA methods and approaches include:

• Do-it-yourself: local people as experts and teachers, and outsiders as novice
• Local analysis of secondary sources
  
• Mapping and modeling
• Time lines and trend and change analysis
• Seasonal calendars
• Daily time-use analysis
• Institutional diagramming
• Matrix scoring and ranking
• Shared presentations and analysis, and
• Participatory planning, budgeting, implementation and monitoring.

(sources and information taken from wikipedia)