URBAN TRANSFORMATION IN HISTORIC SITESA study on Chennai’s transformation with respect to Historical precinct of Fort St George R.Shruthy Shankari M.Arch (General),Hindustan University,Chennai Abstract The study discuss the complicity of the concept of urban transformation and urban change in Chennai with respect to the historical precinct of Fort St George The process is to study the change and to reconsider diversified approach in the urban transformation of the city. Objective of the study is (i) evolution of urban transformation in planning history (ii) to mark the spatial manifestation of urban transformation This leads to categorization of period related with urban transformation and spatial relevance through course of time. Introduction This literature review is part of a study of built cultural heritage in urban transformations, with a specific focus on issues concerning the evaluation and re-evaluation of buildings and built environments when physical urban changes occur. The research study focuses on the assessment process in which built environments are evaluated and turned into cultural heritage, but also the opposite: how buildings and built environments lose significance and cease their status as being cultural heritage. The research also studies how protected built cultural heritage forms a part of urban planning processes. The research is carried out as a single case study of the historical precinct of fort St.George with respect to Chennai. Urbanisation and urban conservation Urbanisation and its various effects on the built cultural heritage is analysed in the articles found. There is an interest in relating built cultural heritage to place making and using it to diminish what is perceived as negative effects of urbanisation and globalisation, where all cities end up looking alike. This is discussed, for instance, by Swensen, who, drawing on a study on four medium-sized Norwegian towns, argued that “cultural heritage has the potential to be a platform for developing the place-specific character of urban regions”, but concluded that urban planning is performed based on In Singapore conservation has become an issue for urban planning. Yuen argued that “heritage conservation is celebrated as a key theme for making the city more livable” (Yuen 2006:832). but also that “culture.an international context and ‘global’ images rather than the uniqueness of the specific towns and their fabric and environment (Swensen 2012:387). The case study also showed that initiatives for urban conservation could emerge both from local inhabitants and from . such as the local population. Simultaneously. striving for urban conservation. A general phenomenon. was the vast demolition of historic areas in towns that took place after the Second World War. the cultural heritage is exploited but not protected. Zhang’s conclusion was that this symbolic use of the cultural heritage is not sustainable and the city will lose its character if the built cultural heritage is to be limited to a number of monuments that are used as decoration in urban planning. According to their study. property owners and businesses. parts of a selected architectural heritage are being conserved in order to “create a better image for the city” and to “promote the development of the tourist economy” (Zhang 2008:188). indicated that there are numerous reasons for urban conservation taking place (Nyseth. old neighbourhoods are being replaced with modern high-rise buildings. As Singapore experienced a decline in the tourism industry. visitors are to be entertained but inhabitants are ignored. an effective implementation of urban conservation strategies requires an agreement between all stakeholders. Zhang described how immense urban transformations are taking place in Beijing in order to stimulate urban growth. Yuen (2006) investigated a changing approach to cultural heritage in Singapore. identifying the outcome for built cultural heritage as the result of a ‘symbolic urban preservation’. Sognnæs 2012). Zhang interpreted this as a consequence of not only land being an economic resource. as well as collective memory to avoid “the homogenizing force of globalization” (Yuen 2006:834). Nyseth and Sognnæs described a much more complex set of motives behind the outcome of urban conservation in the Norwegian context. Zhang (2008) investigated conservation in the context of urban renewal in Beijing. Mosjøen and Risør in Norway. based on study of the towns Stavanger. urbanisation and urban planning resulted in vast destruction of built cultural heritage in order to create a ‘tabula rasa’ and restructure the city. In Norway. It prioritises architectural monuments rather than the urban context. However. A Norwegian case study. Yuen also pointed out the importance of cultural heritage in maintaining a sense of place and identity. entertainment and amenities are incorporated into the arsenal of the growth machine” (Zhang 2008:189). in previous decades. the city’s historical sites were recognised as important to attract visitors. Sognnæs 2012:70). not only in Norway. Zhang argued that the ‘symbolic’ conservation that is taking place has a number of negative effects. causing an emerging counter-movement. this conservation movement coincided with the ‘green movement’ (Nyseth. The reasons in favour of conservation are twofold. such as buildings and built environments. According to Graham. it may be based on arguments supporting the town’s identity. arguing that meanings and values are not fixed. She also identified various motives for conservation. Accordingly. Sognnæs 2012:75). the concept as such was not explicitly defined. or encouragement from heritage professionals. Heritage Searching for articles about ‘heritagisation’ resulted in a number of results. In Mosjøen. Negussie (2004) explored how the assessment of built cultural heritage changes over time. but this was not the case in Stavanger. in response to current needs for it” (Ashworth. where the word was used either as a keyword or in the main text in the articles. rather. This heritagisation process is in contrast to the idea of cultural significance being defined as intrinsic values of objects and places. there had been flexibility in addressing homeowners’ wishes for modernisation. Also. Also. arguing that “value judgements on what to conserve must constantly be re-assessed. In Risør. where the motive instead was “preserving the character of a unique part of urban history” (Nyseth. but constantly change as the built environments are re-evaluated. It is . its survivals and memories. “the discourse was related to a struggle between urban regenerating and renewal of a slum area versus rescuing the old town from demolition” (Nyseth. avoiding conflicts with heritage officials. such as political dimensions. Heritage can be defined as something that “is concerned with the ways in which very selective material artefacts. memories and traditions become resources for the present” with that selection being dependent on contemporary requirements (Graham 2002:1004). heritage also has multiple uses and interpretations. she described the shifting attitudes towards conservation in Ireland and Dublin from the 1930s and onwards. Tunbridge 1999:105). which make dissonance an intrinsic feature and complicates the assessment of it (Graham 2002:1015). However. Heritage is defined in a similar way by Ashworth and Tunbridge. a part of the ‘green movement’. “heritage is more concerned with meanings than material artefacts” (Graham 2002:1004). the urban conservation was carried out within an economic discourse. Sognnæs 2012:74). My conclusion is that ‘heritagisation’ is to be understood as a cultural process in which objects and places. As a consequence. are attributed certain meanings and significances and thus turned into ‘cultural heritage’. heritage – and the artefacts connected to it – might be rejected when values change and new meanings of the past are reflected in the present. Negussie argued that “built environments are shaped by changing ideas and values and are culturally constructed places” (Negussie 2004:220). mythologies. Nyseth and Sognnæs explained a number of motives for conservation. private and civil sectors at different levels of authority. they argued that pasts may be rejected and new pasts be (re)constructed in the creation of heritage.authorities. Nyseth and Sognnæs concluded that what the different cases have in common is the collaboration between actors within public. it was the concept of ‘heritage’ as a phenomenon that was discussed and defined. Heritage is therefore “as much about forgetting as remembering the past” 10 (Graham 2002:1004). who stated that “heritage is the contemporary usage of a past and is consciously shaped from history. Other examples of how heritage is interpreted as being socially constructed is analysed.. in order to attract tourists.. subjective level. etc.important that the debate on conservation is not limited to a discussion on individual buildings and areas. which distinguishes them from other cities i. due to their physical cultural heritage. or it may erase the emerging identity of the place altogether. . as a political act to reinforce its power by strengthening the collective memory and the local identity (Isnart 2012). the array of related management issues is complex and suggestions of what may or may not work includes more issues than those included in this article. Sharon Zukin of Brooklyn College warns that “the over-writing of historical and cultural identities will alienate and marginalise embedded social groups”. positive identity is a goal they want to reach in order to be positively perceived by the outside world. At the same time. In particular the varying perspectives of urban identity of the various stakeholders have to be considered. So the enthusiastic desire to manage urban identities. but that it forms part of a culturally and politically conscious approach to the built heritage” (Negussie 2004:220). functions. must be approached with caution. as urban identity is perceived on an individual.e. This means being capable of “managing” identity. For identity to be used as an asset it must be managed—anchored. nurtured. for example. safeguarded and manipulated—and must include considerations beyond the physical environment. and responding to the following questions: What is/are the current urban identities / of whom? What kind of identity is “wanted” and for whom? What forms and influences urban identities and how can they be steered to obtain the desired identity? As a result. Prof. and which cities use as a tool and “soft” location factor for the social and economic development of their area within the context of global competition. which resulted in interpretations that were contested by the town’s inhabitants (Su 2011) The emerging issues of managing urban identity From the experience described above. we see that the issue of managing urban identities is relevant to a wide range of urban regeneration issues. in the context of the renovation of a chapel in Vievola. and references to. in southern France. urban identities can be a valuable tool to support civic pride and to create an image for a place. The practice of other European projects shows that various manifestations of. For some cities a new. Branding and marketing to support image and identity can be a force to bind and attract people and businesses as well to support the cities in engineering social and economic transformation of urban areas. using them as an instrument for marketing and social transformation. Others already have an identity citizens are proud of. Another example is the official effort to construct a heritage site in Lijiang Old Town in China. irregular streets running in between. This has been a genesis of many a facility that subsequently grew into a nation-wide system. Europeans moved out of the fort and into Black Town. As Madras grew. with narrow. adding to congestion and creating hovels and tenements. Black Town became the commercial centre of the city and developed a very high population density. schools. Chennai has slowly taken its contemporary shape. Its name was officially changed to George Town after a visit by the Prince of Wales in 1906.000 years or so. 2014) Madras was founded in 1639 by the British East India Company and was the first important English settlement in India . . Aug 21. Three broad streets intersected the town. Also Mount Road as a primary artery connecting Ft St George to the ancient town of Adambakkam was a decisive urban intervention which changed the scale of the city. In 1865 The Madras Railway Company connecting Vyasarpady and Walajah Road (Arcot). (CHENNAI 375. library and hospital and also architecture (Indo-Saracenic) which has western influence was established which paved the way for the urban design of Marina connecting San Tome church. Delhi and Bombay.A study on Chennai’s transformation with respect to historical precinct of fort St George Over the last 2. Established rail links in late 19 th century transformed the city connecting it to Calcutta. each step a subtle overlay of new institutions and expanding road networks that have transformed a small cluster of temple towns into the frenetic mega polis we know today. George holds great historic importance located on the banks of Bay of Bengal. Durganand Balsavar. In the 18th century. you have to look back at its rich history. a distance of just under 100 km saw another sift in changing scale of Chennai. Like many other colonial tows the location of central station broadly divided the city into a cultural zone in the south and an industrial zone in the north. Institutions such as technical training institute. banks.Fort St. As Chennai has sprawled frenetically the legacy of urban decision has gradually dissolved. Black Town was originally the old native quarter and grew up outside the walls of Fort St George to the north on the seafront. Its grid pattern layout is the earliest example of English town planning on a large scale in India. . which was semi industrialized during the war become major industrial conglomerates after Independence. To really understand modern Chennai. Known as the great trading house of the Coromandel. Newcomers joined the wartime immigrant population. To really understand modern Chennai. you have to look back at its rich history Much of contemporary Chennai continues to be guided by age-old urban decisions. Luleå . But to some extent conservation of specific buildings in Chennai with respect to the historic prisint has stood tall in gaining the character and identity. in response to current needs for it” Bibliography: 1. Durganand Balsavar . Fernando Barreiro Lead Experts of the HerO. its survivals and memories. Literature Review. Built Cultural Heritage In An Urban Planning Context. Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering Division of Architecture and Water 3. Jennie Sjöholm.University of Technology Department of Civil. REPAIR and Net-Topic Thematic Networks 2. Managing Urban Identities: Aim or Tool of Urban Regeneration by Nils Scheffler. Also steps has been taken in some specific buildings for adaptive reuse which prioritize both inhabitants as well as the heritage” (ie) the contemporary usage of a past and is consciously shaped from history.Conclusion To conclude historical precinct of fort St George with respect to Chennai which in the process of urbanisation space specific character of the region has been lost. Paulius Kulikauskas.