1 10 1 https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/21127/archive/files/a961545b01e132d786ec66a01a097510.pdf?Expires=1774483200&Signature=WIKdY012Jsax76SWpNhtPj6iOhlLoUeBuxDsiGoenfZNZZtcXXsKapwBy7zXUKSkU%7Es%7E71-SlKtEcWk9PFZYhi8x8ke9GRBHkUozUjrhzmqQG672s8orp0QPgMoXWnWmwwIXhR3ITrBGtEeJAU-A9P9jNHlCo-4jWrURXT37oFqkPbZkT6Q42ReEQbwKN5nRlh40ED8KGIMUEhg3YZ0wa-eubhpWtBPr4I9kilq0aOdqtLJTVwA%7EpxsD95KClmZcwrVZdmSc4CE5-dxk073dcaQy5bG3Gsf7BGAIt2qy5K78OAQr8kIGbZtT-6MopR0yg7gd4HLzLDURlwkYN%7EZU9A__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM ad3f877dc316d70e2b736df1751e3200 PDF Text Text Industrial heritage management in the context of urban planning Dr. Heike Oevermann, Georg-Simmel-Center for Metropolitan Studies, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Unter den Linden 6, 10099 Berlin, Germany heike.oevermann @gsz.hu-berlin.de Keywords: industrial heritage sites, industrial heritage management, heritage conservation, urban development, architecture Introduction The management of industrial heritage sites requires rethinking in the context of urban change; the issue of how to balance protection, preservation/conservation, and development becomes all the more crucial as urban industrial heritage sites grow in number. This brings into play new challenges—not only through the known conflicts between heritage conservation and contemporary architecture, but also the increasing demand for reusing industrial heritage sites as a driver of economic urban development. The following contribution discusses industrial heritage and conservation concerns regarding urban and site development. Industrial heritage is not only an issue of monument protection or heritage preservation, nor is it only about identity, memories, and cultural traditions; it belongs to cities and their transformations. Beyond the theme of cultural heritage, the conservation and use of industrial heritage (heritage management) is an issue for planning and urban development. Recognition and management of industrial heritage sites—as protection, re-uses, or partial demolition—go hand in hand with conflicts in planning practices. The core message is: Industrial heritage sites are part of urban transformation and its planning practices. Therefore, heritage management involves more than dealing with the protection and conservation of the heritage site itself; it also encompasses the urban transformation of the city and the site. Consequently, heritage management practice has to balance heritage conservation concerns and the interests of development, which often include new production of architecture, and has to bridge the gap between these three different perspectives and rationales. The recent debate surrounding the ‘Maritime Mercantile City’ UNESCO World Heritage Site in Liverpool provides insights into this complexity, and illustrates similar questions faced by agents at other UNESCO sites, such as the former Zollverein Industrial Complex at North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany. A three-year project provided profound scientific understanding of the conflicts involving heritage site management in the context of urban planning (Oevermann and Mieg 2015). The project findings will be introduced in the following sections, with some details on the case studies from Liverpool and Zollverein. I argue that the scientific knowledge resulting from our project is useful for heritage management practice, and I will offer first insights into my suggestion on developing best practices for bridging the gap between the concerns of heritage conservation, those of urban development and new production of architecture. Furthermore I suggest a processual collaboration between researchers and practitioners. Transfer of scientific knowledge into practice There is a broad literature providing guidance on heritage management practices, including manuals for UNESCO World Heritage Site Management (Ringbeck 2008; Wijesuriya et al. 2013) and guidance on heritage planning (Kalman 2014). Such guidelines represent a profound depth of knowledge and describe general procedures that are very helpful 1 �in understanding the overall context of managing UNESCO World Heritage Sites, and of heritage conservation in the context of planning. However, existing guidelines do not consider the specific heritage category of large industrial heritage sites, nor do they deeply address the challenge of balancing and bridging heritage conservation concerns and the interests of urban/site development. Approaches to this challenge derive from other categories of heritage: that of the historic city. Goetzmann (2009) describes a successful procedure employed in developing the masterplan (Leitbild) for the UNESCO World Heritage Site at Potsdam. There, conflicts were resolved through establishing alternative concepts, designs, and practices to bridge the gap between heritage conservation and urban development. Another example from the field of historic cities is given by Rodwell (2007), who applies the value of sustainability to bridge heritage conservation concerns and urban development interests. There are also specific tools for conflict management and resolution, such as the internationally acknowledged instrument of Heritage Impact Assessments (HIA), developed by ICOMOS (2011). The heritage management practice in the case of Liverpool shows that this tool supports identifying risks and potential benefits for the heritage site through a largescale urban development project, but that it does support the preparation of alternative concepts, designs, or practices. Furthermore, the case study shows that the HIA does not meet the challenge of resolving competing interests, such as heritage conservation and development. As we see later, its two assessments stick within the perspective and rationale of either heritage conservation or urban/site development. Understanding Conflicts Heritage management is an issue for many diverse agents with different perspectives on and interests in industrial heritage (Kierdorf and Hassler 2000; Albrecht et al. 2011; Douet 2012; Cossons et al. 2015). Creating advocacy among former and new users, local citizens, or local communities is an important issue that has been addressed by several studies (Smith et al. 2011; Cossons et al. 2015, pp.204–207). In this article the empirical studies focus on professional planning agents in heritage management and decision making processes. They mostly advocate either the heritage conservation concerns or the interests of urban/site development. The latter often requires architects and new architecture in order to implement their purposes. Already, it becomes obvious that the differing interests of these various planning agents lead to conflicts. But what are the conflicts about? We can generalize two main lines of conflict that challenge industrial heritage sites. One relates to culture as a driving factor in urban development, the other to architecture and its current production. Conflict 1: Culture in urban development Culture is increasingly recognized as a driving force for urban development. Today, cultural institutions such as museums, or events such as the European Capital of Culture, are used as tools for improving a city’s image, upgrading urban spaces, and providing a lively urban environment. The concept of culture-led development refers to these approaches. Heritage and heritage sites have become assets for urban development, often described as heritage-led development. On the one hand, we can recognize this as an opportunity to legitimize and promote heritage concerns and requirements. On the other hand, this superficial understanding triggers conflicts by failing to acknowledge that heritage values are deeply interwoven with the historical fabric of the sites and city. Conflict 2: Demands on the production of architecture Additionally, conflicts emerge out of the different demands on architectural production. Heritage conservation is based on the intrinsic values of material heritage—be 2 �they objects, buildings, or sites, their authenticity and integrity have to be maintained. Conservation therefore demands careful and minimal architectural intervention. However, urban development often uses architecture as an icon of and for structural change, a new image, and urban brands. Cities employ iconic architecture to promote themselves, attracting both talent and investment. Lastly, architectural design often follows new requirements for reuse, e.g. the upgrading of façades to improve thermal comfort. Architects understand architectural production as a tool to re-design the historical fabric and site. Consequently, conflict with conservationist interests is driven by the reality that competition for professional architectural recognition is better served by singular, iconic projects than by modest and sympathetic treatment of existing sites. We can explain these conflicts due to the differences in values of the three introduced perspectives. Agents of heritage conservation and urban/site development use different concepts and instruments and follow diverse objectives, and their practices are led by different values. In social sciences, we can frame these different concepts, objectives, and values as different discourses. In heritage management, they clash and influence heritage management practice. This conflictive interplay can be understood with the help of synchronic discourse analysis (Oevermann and Mieg 2015a). Through our research, it became obvious that the divergent values encountered throughout the constellation of discourses become sources of conflict (Oevermann and Mieg 2015b). What is needed in heritage management practice is to integrate the different core values and to employ further, shared values to define objectives and concepts for implementation. Both the integrated core values as well as the shared values function as bridges (henceforth ‘bridging values’) between the diverse agents and the differing perspectives and rationales. Table 1 provides an overview of the values and discourses relevant to heritage site management. Table 1: Values and Discourses Value Accessibility Authenticity* Bottom-up Character Design* Development* Economic value* Environmental value* Esthetics* Historic values* (Denkmalwerte) Image Integrity* Re-use Sensitivity Vision* Discourses Architectural production, Heritage conservation, Urban development Heritage conservation Heritage conservation, Urban development, Architectural production, Heritage conservation, Urban development Architectural production Urban development Urban development Urban development Architectural production Heritage conservation Architectural production, Urban development Heritage conservation Architectural production, Heritage conservation, Urban development Architectural production, Heritage conservation Urban development * = Core value Two case studies, from Liverpool and Zollverein, will illustrate the argument. Our research showed that Liverpool and Zollverein are specific cases but not exceptional ones, 3 �regarding this basic conflict between heritage conservation concerns and urban/site development interests. Case studies: Liverpool and Zollverein Liverpool and Zollverein’s UNESCO World Heritage Sites are huge, complex, and constituted by long-term transformation processes. In both cases, it is accepted by all planning agents that both heritage conservation and future urban development are necessary and yet must be balanced. Due to limited space, this article focuses on two details of the transformations. In Liverpool, this concerns the conflictive debate around the ongoing (2014) large-scale development project called Liverpool Waters, located at the Northern Docks. One instrument of heritage management practice—the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA)—will be introduced to illustrate the extent to which the differences between conservationists and developer influence heritage management practice, and how difficult it is to achieve an appropriate balance. In the case of Zollverein, the Masterplan Zollverein (2001) from the Office of Metropolitan Architecture in Rotterdam is introduced, together with the conservation masterplan (Denkmalpflegerischer Rahmenkonzeption) of Reinhard Roseneck, and the compromises that were agreed—on the basis of bridging values—to balance heritage conservation concerns and development interests. The following discussion does not take into consideration other interesting arguments on the conflicts (e.g. Gaillard and Rodwell 2015 in the case of Liverpool). Liverpool’s large-scale development project Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City has been scheduled as a World Heritage Site since 2004; In 2010 an outline planning application from Peel Land and Property (Peel Waters) was first submitted by Liverpool City Council; since 2012, Liverpool has been included on the UNESCO List of World Heritage in Danger, as a result the density and heights of buildings within the Liverpool Waters proposal, and the resulting impact on the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the heritage site. The Liverpool Waters project is partly located within the heritage territory and its buffer zone north of Pier Head and Prince’s Dock, and will re-use 60 ha of dockland area. It comprises a mixed-use, high-value urban quarter development that will create around 1.7 million square meters of new built space. The project has impacts on archeological objects in the ground, on views and the waterfront, as well as on the overall urban morphology of Liverpool (Bailey 2011; Chadwick and Dicks 2011; Rodwell 2015). In 2014 the project has been revised since the first masterplan; the revised masterplan was approved in 2013, and individual planning applications are still needed. Positive or negative impacts of new development projects on heritage can be assessed by the HIA framework developed by ICOMOS (2011). The central idea is that: “World Heritage sites are thus single heritage assets with an international value that has been clearly articulated. Not everything within them contributes to OUV, but those attributes that do must be appropriately protected.” (ICOMOS 2011, p. iii). Three leading questions will be addressed: What is the heritage at risk and why is it important—how does it contribute to OUV? How will change or a development proposal impact OUV? How can these effects be avoided, reduced, rehabilitated, or compensated? (ICOMOS 2011, p. 4, 2-2-2). It is important for assessing the impact of new developments to understand the intrinsic value of all heritage assets and their contribution to the significance (described as OUV) of the heritage site. Each significance (from minor to major importance as heritage) is assessed to obtain single and cumulative impacts (classified from major beneficial to major adverse) on the heritage site. In summary, the HIA helps to identify upcoming risks or benefits and to differentiate these impacts on heritage sites. However, it does not help to bridge the differences between heritage conservation concerns and the interests of urban/site development. 4 �In the case of Liverpool, both conflicting agents—conservationists and developers— commissioned consultants to produce HIAs. However, the introduced conflicts were repeated in assessing the impacts, as demonstrated by the following quotations from the closing comments. The following conclusion regarding the high density and building heights in the HIA commissioned by English Heritage: “The legibility of the Central Docks and the central commercial core of the City will be damaged by the secondary cluster of tall buildings in the Buffer Zone. Together, the primary and secondary clusters of tall buildings and the string of mid‐rise structures along the Mersey’s edge that form part of this submission, will overwhelm the historic primacy of the Pier Head buildings along the City’s waterfront, causing significant harm to the WHS’s OUV.” (Bond 2012, pp. 392–393). Obviously, this argument gives high importance to the historic values of the site. Historic values are core values of heritage conservation, as Table 1 has shown. In contrast the next argument demonstrates the importance given to economic values as core tenets of urban development: “Tall buildings are included in the scheme to create a new international business destination that will attract investment from around the world. Research confirms that positive economic impacts can accrue from the development of tall buildings. Furthermore, central waterfront locations are a finite and scarce resource, and are highly valued as commercial locations in cities across the world. Therefore, given the difficulties faced by Liverpool in attracting commercial investment and jobs since the demise of the old docks, it is crucial to make the most efficient use of the land through high density development and tall buildings. By using this finite resource carefully, tall buildings also provide more space for creation of high quality public realm.” (Liverpool Waters 2011, p. 13). The different core values influence significantly the two HIAs, not only in this detail but more generally, as shown by the comparative cumulative impact assessment (Table 2). Each number represents a single impact assessment of a heritage asset reflecting OUV, including impacts on (key) views, strategic landmark buildings, townscape characteristics, and compliance with guiding documents and policies. Table 2 shows that the HIA commissioned by English Heritage assesses nine large negative/adverse impacts and no moderate positive/beneficial impacts (versus zero and thirteen respectively, in the HIA commissioned by the developer). Table 2: Cumulative impacts of the Liverpool Waters project on OUV from HIA English Heritage and Liverpool Waters (Bond 2011, p. 356; Bond 2012, p. 386; Liverpool Waters 2011, p. 5). Very large positive/ beneficial Stephen Bond for English Heritage (2012) Peter de Figueiredo for Peel Waters (2011) Large positive/ beneficial Moderate positive/ beneficial Slight positive/ beneficial 0 0 0 3 0 1 13 9 Neutral Slight negative/ adverse Moderate negative/ adverse Large negative/ adverse Very large negative/ adverse 8 7 3 9 3 17 1 1 0 0 5 �From my point of view, the HIA is a very useful instrument to understand in detail the possible impacts on heritage sites, and for assessing these via the core values of a single rationale, such as giving importance to historic values (conservation) or to economic values (development). Nevertheless, it fails to integrate the divergent core values that lead to conflicts, and does not create bridges between the diverse agents and their perspectives and values. Transformation of the Zollverein Industrial Complex Coal extraction at Zollverein ceased in 1986 (Shaft 12), followed by the end of coke production in 1993 (coking plant). At the beginning of the transformation process, discussions were held on whether any (and if so, which) parts of the huge area might have value as monuments. Since 2000, all four of the remaining shaft sites (Shafts 1/2/8, 3/7/11, 4/5/11, and Shaft 12) and the coking plant have been listed as monuments; and in 2001, Shafts 1/2/8, Shaft 12 and the coking plant were also designated an UNESCO World Heritage Site. Since the 1990s, Zollverein has been transformed by creative interventions, and was an anchor project of the International Building Exhibition (IBA) Emscher Park (1989–99). The transformations of the site are ongoing as new uses of art, design, and culture are slowly established. A chronological overview of the history of Zollverein and its transformation (2010) is given in Table 3. Table 3: Chronological overview of the history and transformation of the Zollverein industrial complex, 1928– 2010 Date 1928– 1932 1957 1986 1986 1986 1986 1988 1989 1993 2000 2001 2006 2010 Topic Construction of Shaft 12 by the architects F. Schupp und M. Kremmer 26.11. 15.12. 16.12. 23.12. 24.01. Herbst 30.06. 20.06. 16.12. Jan. Planning of the Cokery Plant by F. Schupp Preliminary listing of parts of Shaft 12 Sale of Shaft 12 at NRW /LEG Listing of Shaft 12 by the ferderal government Closure of Shaft 12 Final listing of Shaft 12 Shaft 12 became IBA project Closure of Cokery Plant Listing of Shaft1/2/8 and Cokery Plant Recognition as UNESCO World Heritage Opening vistor center Opening European Capital of Culture and Ruhr Museum Following the closure of Zollverein, its subsequent transformation stems from the IBA Emscher Park, which was crucial to establishing the linkages between heritage conservation and regional development. The conviction was that future development of the Emscher region would only be possible and successful by conserving the large industrial sites that constitute the region’s historic landmarks (Ganser and Wermker 1994). The agenda Denkschrift Zollverein 2010 (Ganser et al. 1999) followed this integrative planning approach and defined three basic values on which the future transformations of Zollverein: The first of these is to 6 �understand historic shafts and plants as the basic urban design structure, while the others refer to the nature and the future uses of art and design (Ganser et al. 1999, pp. 15–16)1. Despite all critic, Zollverein’s masterplan from 2001/2002 integrated these values in the new development project. A visitor center and Ruhrmuseum, a design school, a congress center, and two industrial design parks are the main new elements, partly realized in 2015. Even more interesting is the urban design concept of the masterplan, which defines the historic complex as the core to be conserved, around which new functions and buildings are to be located. In this ‘shell area’ the demands for protection and preservation are not as stringent as within the former plants. This idea was also implemented in a second masterplan concept, called Denkmalpflegerischer Rahmenkonzeption, written and design by a conservation consultant Reinhard Roseneck (2002). Although there are differences between these two masterplan concepts, both define and respect the protection and conservation area—the core —and define change and development through new buildings in the surroundings. Research findings from synchronic discourse analysis of Zollverein indicate some values function as bridging values between the different concerns and interests of the diverse planning agents. One is accessibility (Zugänglichkeit), a value pointed out by the diverse agents, with nearly the same importance. This became evident through the analysis of planning documents referring to the transformation, from 1989 to 2010 (225 documents in total). Accessibility means facilitating physical access to the formerly inaccessible production site and plants. Graph 1 shows the quantity of documents (in %) that make reference to this value. Next to the common concern of conservation and development, further bridging values are: reuse, and aesthetic values (spatial quality, design and character). However, the value of authenticity—understood according to the rationale of heritage conservation—is introduced. The importance given by the diverse agents differs enormously, thereby indicating sources of conflict, which alsco become obvious in the expert interviews. 92 85 72 70 Conservation 100% = 72 documents Urban Development 100% = 100 documents Amount of docume nts in % 31 28 Architecture 100% = 47 documents Accessibility Authenticity Values Graph 1: Zollverein: Bridging and conflicting values 1The citation in German: “1. Die Gesamtheit der baulichen Anlagen mit den Eckpfeilern Schacht XII, Schacht 1/8, Kokerei, den Gleisanlagen, den verbindenden Bandbrücken und der Kohlenwäsche in der Mitte als Knoten im Netz von Kohleförderung und Kohleverarbeitung. Diese bilden das städtebauliche Gerüst. 2.Die Artenvielfalt und die Schönheit der Natur auf en Industriebrachen. Diese sind Basis für den Zollvereinpark. 3. Die Widmung des Standortes für die Kunst und Kultur des 20. Und 21. Jahrhunderts in einer Qualität die im Weltvergleich bestand hat.” (Ganser et al. 1999, pp. 15–16). 7 �It is striking how few documents on urban development and architecture address values of authenticity. Authenticity is a conflictive value, assigned high importance among agents of conservation yet low importance among agents of urban development and architecture. This result was confirmed by statements in expert interviews. We see that conservation and accessibility function as bridging values because they are implied by most of the documents produced by each group. Development is also integrated within most of the documents, although less so in the field of conservation. The data confirm that the urban design ideas of the two masterplans integrate heritage conservation concerns with the interests of urban development. However, next to these introduced bridging values that facilitate masterplanning, conflicts arise when planning became more detailed. The proposed transformation of the former coal-washing plant into a visitor center and the Ruhrmuseum was a particular issue of debate, which I have reflected in another article (Oevermann 2012, p. 193). In this part of the transformation, addition bridging values were needed to bridge the gap (Oevermann and Mieg 2015a; Oevermann and Mieg 2015c). Identifying best practice in balancing heritage conservation and urban development From my point of view, research findings concerning conflictive and bridging values are useful in the practical sphere of heritage management. In the following sections, I offer first insights into the debate on best conservation practices for bridging the gap between heritage conservation concerns and the interests of urban/site development in this complex field. Four assumptions lead my argumentation: 1. Scientific research findings are generally valid for broader or different constellations of agents. Other values might be relevant. 2. There are tools available, e.g. agent-oriented discourse analysis (akteurszentrierte Diskursanalyse), which allow analysis of different interests and rationales (objectives, concepts, values) and which can be used in practice (Mieg and Oevermann 2015). Synchronic discourse analysis, as briefly introduced here, is an instrument for scientific research. 3. Best practice means the integration of diverse concerns and interests; 4. Understanding the constellation of agents, their perspectives and core values, is the basis for developing best practice for balancing heritage conservation and urban development. The following tools are suggested for identifying best practice in industrial heritage management, balancing heritage conservation concerns with the interests of urban/site development. They are preliminary and need to be discussed and adopted together with partners in practice. Tool 1 (WZ1): A simple matrix might help to structure the perspectives and rationales of diverse agents. Perspectives and rationales can be described by three categories: objectives, concepts, and values. Differences, especially in values, indicate prospective conflicts; shared positions indicate common ground for heritage management practice. Shared values might function as bridging values in practical heritage management. The matrix reveals challenges and opportunities within the constellation of agents, and their perspectives and rationales. It can be used for transparent communication. The use of structured questions can reveal the objectives, concepts, and values of the respective agents during workshops, interviews, round table discussion, etc. These questions are: 1. What are your objectives regarding the industrial heritage management of xxx? 8 �2. What concepts do you use regarding the industrial heritage management of xxx? 3. A prepared list of values, which have to be ticked (multiple-choice), might help to answer the question: What is of great importance regarding the industrial heritage management of xxx? Tool 2 (WZ2): A two-page statement of significance can clarify the OUV/the historic values of the heritage site for all parties involved in the transformation processes. The importance of a shared understanding was highlighted previously, with reference to the ICOMOS Heritage Impact Assessment. In a second step, knowledge on possible bridging values (see Tool 1) can be introduced to all partners. Tool 3 (WZ3): The third tool is a slight revision of the matrix Tool 1. An understanding of the significance of the heritage site and bridging values might enable parties to work out slightly shifted objectives and concepts, and to add some shared values. Examples of shifted objectives might include the adapted re-use of buildings; slightly shifted concepts might involve conservation-led development rather than real estate-oriented development; additional shared values might include accessibility, sustainability, or sensitive design. All agents should be involved in this process of revision. Tool 4 (WZ 4): The fourth tool supports the recognition of best practice to balance heritage conservation concerns and urban development interests. Best practice is identified on the basis of shared objectives, concepts, and values, which are likely be those agreed through the process of mutual understanding and revision. Furthermore, best practice has to take into consideration the statement of significance. The simple matrix can again help to communicate the findings to a broader public and to agents involved in heritage management at other sites. Graph 2 illustrates these first insights toward identifying best practice in industrial heritage management. 9 �Graph 2: Suggested toolkit to identify good practice Conclusion Conflicts in heritage management practice are often based on different perspectives on and interests in industrial heritage sites. Diverse agents might consider the need for both heritage conservation and urban development, but their practice often sticks to the core values of either heritage conservation concerns or development interests. In these cases, planning and assessment instruments such as the HIA do not bridge the differences between the diverse perspectives and rationales. Here, the suggested approach comes into play, a toolkit to help to identify and communicate best practice with the aim of balancing different interests. This suggestion includes: Diverse agents are involved in the process right from the beginning; potential points of conflict are disclosed; the statement on heritage significance is clarified; bridging values are considered; and integrated planning approaches with alternative concepts are defined. It would be of great interest to arrange for collaboration between our research center and partners in practice, to improve the suggested approach and implement it in the practical management of industrial heritage. Acknowledgments This work was supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG) (Project DFG, MI 788/4,1-2). I am grateful to Prof. Harald A. Mieg, for supporting and guiding the research. Vita Dr. Heike Oevermann is based at the Georg-Simmel-Center for Metropolitan Studies at Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, where she is a researcher and lecturer in the field of heritage and urban studies. Her work focuses on the themes of industrial heritage, urban transformations, the UNESCO World Heritage Programme, historic urban design, and community participation. 10 �References Albrecht, H, Kierdorf, A & Tempel, N (eds) 2011, Industrial Heritage - Ecology & Economy: Selected Papers: Proceedings of the XIV International TICCIH Congress. Freiburg, Sachsen, 2009. Chemnitz, Zweckverb. Sächsisches Industriemuseum. Bailey, M 2011, Liverpool Waters Design & Access Statement November 2011, report prepared by WYG for Liverpool Waters. (Gray literature) Bond, S 2011, Assessment of the Potential Impact of the Proposed Liverpool Waters Master Plan on OUV at Liverpool Maritime Mercantile WHS, report prepared for English Heritage, accessed 23/11/2012, http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/Journals/1/Files/ 2011/5/20/Liverpool%20Waters%20-%20OUV%20Assessment%20-%20FINAL %20REPORT.pdf Bond, S 2012, Assessment of the Potential Impact of the Resubmitted Outline Planning Application Relating to the Liverpool Waters Master plan on Outstanding Universal Value at Liverpool Maritime Mercantile WHS, report prepared for English Heritage. (Gray literature) Chadwick, P & Dicks, S 2011, Liverpool Waters – Archaeological Deposit Model, report prepared by CgMs Consulting on behalf of Peel Land & Property (Ports) Ltd. (Gray literature) Cossons, N, Cramer, J, Ringbeck, B & Watson, M 2015, ‘Discussing Industrial Heritage Conservation and Planning’, in H Oevermann & HA Mieg (eds), Industrial Heritage Sites in Transformation: Clash of Discourses, Routledge, New York, pp.199–216. Douet, J (ed) 2012, Industrial Heritage Re-tooled: The TICCIH Guide to Industrial Heritage Conservation, Carnegie Publishing Ltd., Lancaster. Gaillard, B & Rodwell, D 2015, ‘A Failure of Process? Comprehending the Issues Fostering Heritage Conflict in Dresden Elbe Valley and Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City World Heritage Sites ’, The Historic Environment, vol.6, no.1, pp.16–40. Ganser, K, Best, H.-J, Borsdorf, U, Bruder, R, Maack, K.-J, Möhler, D, Roters, W, Scheytt, O & Zec, P 1999, Denkschrift Zollverein 2010: Impulse für eine Fortentwicklung des Zukunftsstandortes Zollverein, [Agenda Zollverein 2010], IBA Emscher Park. (Gray literature) Ganser, K & Wermker, K 1994, ‘Industrielandschaft und Identität’, [Industrial Landscape and Identity], Garten + Landschaft, vol.7, pp.29–34. Goetzmann, A 2009, ‘Potsdam -Leitbild Weltkulturerbe’, in TU Darmstadt FB Architektur (ed) Planungspraxis deutscher Großstädte: Materialien neuer Planungskulturen, [Practice of Planning in German Cities: Materials of New Cultures of Planning], Darmstadt, Druck: BBR, pp.97–101. ICOMOS 2011, Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Heritage Properties, ICOMOS, accessed 11/07/2014, http://www.icomos.org/world_heritage/ HIA_20110201.pdf 11 �Kalman, H 2014, Heritage Planning: Principles and Process, Routledge, London, New York. Kierdorf, A & Hassler, U 2000, Denkmale des Industriezeitalters: Von der Geschichte des Umgangs mit Industriekultur, [Monuments oft he Industrial Age. The History of Handling Industrial Culture], Wasmuth, Tübingen. Liverpool Waters 2011, Heritage Impact Assessment: Non-Technical Summary, accessed 18/09/2012, http://www.liverpoolwaters.co.uk/pdf/PlanApps/201111/ Heritage_Impact_Assessment-Non_Technical.pdf Mieg, HA & Oevermann, H, 2015, ‘Planungsprozesse in der Stadt: Die Synchrone Diskursanalyse. Forschungsinstrument und Werkzeug für die planerische Praxis,’ [Processes of Urban Planning: The Synchronic Discourse Analysis], Zürich: vdf. Oevermann, H, 2012, ‘Über den Umgang mit dem industriellen Erbe. Eine diskursanalytische Untersuchung städtischer Transformationsprozesse am Beispiel der Zeche Zollverein,‘ [Dealing with Industrial Heritage Sites. A Discoursenalysis of Urban Transformation Processes of the Coal Mine Zollverein], Essen: Klartext. Oevermann, H & Mieg, HA 2015a, ‘Exploring Urban Transformation: Synchronic Discourse Analysis in the Field of Heritage Conservation and Urban Development’, Journal of Urban Regeneration and Renewal, vol.09, no.01. Oevermann, H & Mieg, HA 2015b, ‘Studying Transformations of Industrial Heritage Sites: Synchronic Discourse Analysis of Heritage Conservation, Urban Development and Architectural Production’, in H Oevermann & HA Mieg (eds), Industrial Heritage Sites in Transformation: Clash of Discourses, Routledge, New York, pp.12–25. Oevermann, H & Mieg, HA 2015c, ‘Zollverein and Sulzer: The Tangible and Intangible Dimensions of Industrial Heritage Sites.’, in J Czierpka, K Oerters & N Thorade (eds), Regions, Industries and Heritage. Perspectives on Economy, Society, and Culture in Modern Western Europe, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp.260–279. Ringbeck, B 2008, Managementpläne für Welterbestätten: Ein Leitfaden für die Praxis, [Management Plans of World Heritage Sites. A Guideline for Practice], Dt. UNESCOKomm, Bonn. Rodwell, D 2007, Conservation and Sustainability in Historic Cities, Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA. Rodwell, D 2015, ‘Liverpool: Heritage and Development - Bridging the Gap?’, in H Oevermann & HA Mieg (eds), Industrial Heritage Sites in Transformation: Clash of Discourses, Routledge, New York, pp.29–46. Roseneck, R (2002) Denkmalpflegerische Rahmenkonzeption: im Auftrag der Entwicklungsgesellschaft Zollverein, [Master Plan of Conservation. Commissioned by the Development Agency of Zollverein] context_plan, Braunschweig, (Gray literature). Smith, L, Shackel, PA & Campbell, G 2011, Heritage, Labour, and the Working Classes, Routledge, London and New York. 12 �Wijesuriya, G, Thompson, J & Young, C 2013, Managing Cultural World Heritage, UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Paris. 13 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Big Stuff 2015 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Alison Wain Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 03.09.2015 - 04.09.2015 Paper A paper presented at a conference or a workshop Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Industrial heritage management in the context of urban planning Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Heike Oevermann architecture consensus conservation industrial heritage management significance site urban development values