Roses and castles: competing visions of canal heritage and the making of place

Abstract

This article evaluates the cultural politics of waterfront heritage in regenerating Manchester, UK, in order to understand why the benefits envisaged for local communities have not been fully realised. Analysing a database of texts produced for an EU cultural heritage project (2015-2017) we find there is no lack of rich and diverse cultural heritage in Manchester, produced by a broad range of people. Using Lefebvre's (1991) ideas about the social production of space we explore how, nonetheless, waterfronts as heritage spaces are produced in ways that exclude that variety, and thus place and displace people, socially as well as bodily. We propose a role for geolocated mobile apps for spatialised heritage storytelling to enable communities to make their mark on official, imposed representations of space. Our analysis has relevance for cities across the globe, as governments, investors, redevelopment quangos and others seek to use urban waterways as heritage assets to reinvigorate former industrial areas, without adequate appreciation of their full range of cultural meanings.

Research Hotspots and Future Trends in Canal-Related Industrial Buildings

“…They reflect profound connections between culture and the natural environment, shaping community life and bringing about structural changes to society and the world [3]. For example, Wincott, Ravenscroft, and Gilchrist (2020) highlighted a lack of full understanding of the cultural significance of urban canal waterways as heritage assets for revitalizing former industrial areas by governments, investors, and redevelopment projects [84]. Zhu (2015) proposed recommendations for the protection of characteristic post-industrial urban heritage through ecological transformation, using examples from the Erie Canal and the New York City region [85].…”

Pacemaking and placemaking on the UK canals

“…As Veronica Strang (2009, p. 199) explains, ‘water embodies nature itself, and even places that are plainly human artefacts (such as reservoir lakes) are rapidly reconfigured as “natural” environments’ projecting calm, beauty and relaxation. Yet canals are more complex, as they are perceived as concurrently ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’ (Krause et al, 2020), attractive and unattractive (Pitt, 2018), and as nostalgic heritage sites as well as locations for waterfront property development (Wincott et al, 2020). These dynamic and lively places, composed of human, non‐human, organic and inorganic subjects and objects such as water, the human and non‐human animals, flora, boats and built environment (including various specific waterway structures such as the locks, bridges, tunnels, weirs) are thus places of juxtapositions and contradictions.…”

“…However, as the railway system emerged in the mid‐19th century, their usage gradually declined (Maw, 2018). Having lost their significance in transport, today's canals have transformed into industrial and natural heritage sites, subject to both ‘bottom‐up’ (such as volunteer maintenance activities) and ‘top‐down’ (such as extensive restoration projects or waterfront development) placemaking initiatives throughout the 20th and 21st centuries (Wincott et al, 2020). Consequently, the inland waterways have evolved into multifaceted spaces for living, working, commuting, leisure and tourism.…”

Absence as an affordance: thinking with(out) water on the inland waterways

“…32 Former industrial canals with their absent industries can be converted into leisure spaces or cultural heritage sites to tell stories of urban regeneration, whilst the presence of new users can contribute to removing certain practices or people from the waterways. 33 Furthermore, there are some absences on the waterways that are seen or felt only by those possessing particular information or local knowledge, such as former workers or people familiar with the local history. The subsequent water-landscape imaginaries are therefore not merely constituted by what is explicitly on display, but also of (temporary) absent presences that allow particular actions and practices.…”