Value Based Decision Making for Conservation. Canadian Studies Heritage Conservation Programme Symposium.

November 18, 2005, Ottawa. Organised by the School of Canadian Studies Heritage Conservation Programme,

Carleton University

“Why are you protecting this crap?”: Perceptions of Value for an

Invented heritage—a Saskatchewan Perspective

Bruce Dawson Supervisor, Canada-Saskatchewan Historic Places Initiative

Department of Culture, Youth and Recreation, Government of Saskatchewan 2005

Introductioni

Several years ago, while I was working as an

interpretive guide at a major First Nations rock art

site in Alberta, a tourist responded to my detailed

explanation of one of the panels with the retort, “Why

are you protecting this crap? It‟s not like it‟s the

Mona Lisa or anything.” At the time, I thought this

was just an outburst of an ill-informed and/or racist visitor. I responded with a general commentary

about the importance of heritage and how the

carvings provided a tangible link to the past—the

usual response when questions arose regarding the

significance of the site. Whether or not the visitor

accepted my explanation I cannot say, but he made

no further comments during the rest of the tour.

However, unlike most of the questions and comments I received from visitors, this one continues to

reverberate with me. In recent years, I find I use the

question as a touchstone in my research work.

Indeed, the comment can be viewed as indicative of

two large issues in the field of heritage

conservation—how do you determine which places

are historically significant and how do you rationalize

the changing views of this “significance” over time? This second question has been an issue for heritage

officials in Canada since the launch of the Historic

Places Initiative (HPI) in 2001. As a collaborative

initiative among the federal, provincial and territorial

governments, the HPI is a multi-component program

aimed at preserving Canada‟s historic places through

education, conservation advice and financial

incentives.ii A key component of the HPI is the Canadian Register of Historic Places (CRHP), an

online database of places recognized as significant by

the program partners. Nominations to the CRHP are

to feature value-based statements of significance for

each of these places, many of which were recognized

many years or even decades ago.

The work taking place in Saskatchewan offers a good example of how these issues are being approached.

In 1980 the province passed The Heritage Property

Act(1980) which empowered both municipalities and

the province to recognize heritage properties. Since The Act was introduced, over 700 places have been

designated as heritage property, including 43 by the

Province. How provincial officials have interpreted

and applied the broad concept of heritage value

featured in the 25 year old act will be key to this

discussion. Also considered will be the current

challenge of the Historic Places Initiative to look at

the heritage properties recognized under The Act and the values for which they were formally recognized,

in light of the current generation‟s perceptions of

heritage significance.

What is Heritage?

Before one can begin to grapple with the ways and means of determining what places constitute our

heritage, one must understand the term. Heritage,

originating from the word inheritance, was used by

past generations to refer to property and other

tangible items which passed from one generation to

the next via will or gift. In the years after World War

II, the term emerged from the domain of probate

courts and became associated with the conservation and preservation of historic properties at the local,

national and international level.iii In Canada, the

identity-seeking evoked by the cultural upheaval of

the 1960‟s, and the period of reflection that

accompanied 1967 centennial celebrations generated,

in the words of Jean Friesen, “a growing perception

that „heritage‟ is a common inheritance and that no

one group or individual should „own the past‟.”iv During the 1970s and 80s, numerous definitions of

heritage emerged in Canada, all seeking to refine

meaning of the word while, at the same time,

contributing a certain vagueness to the definition that

enables anyone to feel validated under the term.v

Along these lines, The Act defines heritage property

as that being “of interest for its architectural,

historical, cultural, environmental, archaeological, palaeontological, aesthetic or scientific value.”vi It is

this drive for inclusiveness which underscores the

2

essentiality of modern heritage as an invented

construct. While heritage can be composed of both

tangible and intangible items, the meaning of these

items is not an unquestionable fact or concept but, rather, an invented construct of the authors—

developed to suit their specific needs. Many authors

have referred to this invented nature of the term,

perhaps most directly philosopher Uffe Juul Jensen

who asserts “heritage is not always something

already present in a culture. It is, on the contrary,

selected, negotiated, and perhaps even constructed by

the heirs.”vii In response to the vague lists of descriptors which pose as a definition for heritage, I

put forth the suggestion that heritage can be

summarized as those visions, processes and objects of

the past that we choose to engage with and perpetuate

for the future. Capturing both the tangible and

intangible, this definition is steeped in the idea of

active agency by the heritage determiner along the

lines suggested in the Deschambault Charter. As well, this definition embraces the invented nature of

the term, suggesting that we choose what elements of

the past we want to grapple with and pass on to our

heirs, thus constructing or inventing the heritage of

our present generation. As such, it is an

improvement on the catch-all mentality that has

plagued the term in recent times and offers some

semblance of structure while not inhibiting its ability to shift with the priorities of the author.

How has Heritage Been Created?

The process by which individuals, communities and

nations have chosen the items and places they wish to

honour and preserve as heritage has evolved over time. For buildings, landscapes and other places, the

process of choice from the 1700s until the 1950s was,

by and large, individualistic and arbitrary.viii

Seemingly the only guidepost for those in the western

world was that the place should be in some way

educational to society at large.ix In most cases, the

focus of this “education” was to provide a tangible

reflection of the discipline of history‟s then pre-occupation with the political and economic legacies

of white men.x Further, when this thinking was

applied to buildings, there was an “overemphasis

given to artistic, architectural and/or monumental

aspects of single buildings or ensembles.”xi Such an

attitude is evident in the words of words of John

Vanbrugh, who, during a 1709 campaign to preserve

Woodstock Manor in England, wrote to the Duchess of Marlborough, stating:

There is perhaps no one thing, which the

most Polite part of Mankind have more

universally agreed in; than the Vallue [sic]

they have ever set upon the Remains of

distant Times. Nor amongst the Severall [sic]

kinds of those Antiquitys [sic], are there any

so much regarded, as those of Buildings; Some for their Magnificence, or Curious

Workmanship; An others; as they move more

lively and pleasing Reflections (than History

without their Aid can do) on the Person who

have Inhabited them; On the Remarkable

things which have been transacted in them,

Or the extraordinary Occasions of Erecting

them.xii The results of this form of conservation was an “often haphazard and

arbitrary selection of protected elements in a

historic city centre, and the marginalization

of „less important‟ areas.”xiii

However, embodied in Vanburgh‟s passionate plea, is

the concept of historic places and conservation efforts

having value to society. Defined by Oxford as the “worth, desirability, or utility, or the qualities on

which these depend” and, alternatively, as “one‟s

principles, priorities or standards”xiv, value is a pre-

existing and multi-layered form of critique. Most

commonly used to describe the economic worth of an

object or idea, value is a universally-accepted concept

that can be applied more broadly, including as the

result of processes to evaluate heritage resources. In 1902, art historian Alois Riegl put forward what is

generally accepted to be the first listing of heritage

value typologies, suggesting age, historical,

commemorative, use and newness values as

categories through which an analyst could form a

constructive and comparative critique.xv Sir John

Summerson furthered these thoughts in relation to

buildings in 1949, suggesting:

Complicated as they are, they [values] can be sorted

out and here, to start with, is a rough list of types of

buildings which may in certain circumstances deserve

protection:

1. The building which is a work of art: the product

of a distinct and outstanding creative mind.

2. The building which is not a distinct creation in

this sense but possesses in a pronounced form

the characteristic virtues of the school of design

which produced it.

3. The building which, of no great artistic merit, is

either of significant antiquity or a composition of fragmentary beauties welded together in the

course of time.

3

4. The building which has been the scene of great

events or the labours of great men.

5. The building whose only virtue is that in a bleak tract of modernity it alone gives depth in

time.xvi

At the same time, the necessities of the post-World

War II reconstruction, combined with a desire to

reaffirm national identities in the aftermath of the

conflict, heightened the involvement of government

and publicly-funded institutions in the heritage conservation process. This shift of patrons resulted

in an impetus for more objective thought to be

applied in the choice of places and buildings to be

recognized and/or conserved. During this period, the

key process that emerged to meet this goal of

objectivity was a value-based approach. By 1964, the

concept was sufficiently accepted to entrench it as a

founding principle in the preamble to the earlier-mentioned ICOMOS Venice Charter. In a similar

fashion, the 1972 UNESCO World Heritage

Convention put forth guidelines to recognize places

of “outstanding universal value from the point of

view of history, art or science.”xvii

In the early 1970s, organizations in Canada began

promoting and using value-based evaluation tools, many of which featured empirical scoring systems to

assist with the decision making process.xviii This

discussion was broadened in 1979 by Harold Kalman

in the booklet The Evaluation of Historic

Buildings.xix Written to “take some of the mystique

out of architectural value judgements, and to show

that these may be made rationally, objectively and

confidently,”xx Kalman proposed a five-criteria (architecture, history, environment, usability and

integrity), four-grade scale evaluation form that can

be applied to any property. Within each of the

criteria, a number of sub-criteria are scored so that a

final total may be arrived at, which “will form the

basis for decisions as to its future in the context of a

conservation plan.”xxi Although the completion of

the form was to be based on historic research, the form did not call for the inclusion of this information;

only the allocation of a score for each category.

Other concerns were that the criteria were elite-

centered, requiring professional consultation to be

fully addressed, and that it was too highly-weighted

towards architecture, with this criterion accounting

for over one-third of the points on a typical form.

Despite these shortcomings, the document was well-received and distributed and the Kalman evaluation

technique became the standard for heritage

conservation programs of many municipal and

provincial governments across Canada, including

Saskatchewan.

At the same time many were adopting the Kalman

empirical system, a shift in the application of heritage value was taking place on the world stage. In 1981,

Australia ICOMOS issued a revision of their Charter

for the Conservation of Places of Cultural

Significance. This document, commonly called the

Burra Charter, suggested that “the aim of

conservation is to retain or recover the cultural

significance of a place…” with cultural significance

defined as the “aesthetic, historic, scientific or social value for past, present or future generations.” xxii

The companion document, entitled Guidelines to the

Burra Charter: Cultural Significance further defines

the concept, offering definitions of the value

typologies as well as how to apply them in

completing two written components, the assessment

of cultural significance and the statement of cultural

significance.xxiii The Australian system differs from Kalman‟s system in several ways. It weights each

value type equally (though some values can be more

important to particular sites), can be applied to all

types of space, not just buildings, and, most

importantly, compels the evaluator to summarize the

findings in a succinct statement that is “clear and

pithy, expressing simply why the place is of value but

not restating the physical or documentary evidence.”xxiv The result of this text-based analysis

is a document that you can link to the objectives and

ideas featured in a heritage management plan as

opposed to the providing a number that only really

enables comparison of any one place to other

similarly evaluated places, or to say yes/no to the

conservation project because the number is higher

than some arbitrary cut-off point.

The cultural significance approach captured public

favour and by the mid-1990s, organizations in the

United Kingdom, the United States and many other

nations had adopted the process for evaluating their

heritage resources. The National Trust in the UK

adopted the statement of significance in 1996 as the

basis for their heritage management program, arguing

A Statement of Significance explains why the

National Trust holds a property. It explains

what matters and why. It expresses its 'spirit

of place' and summarises the features and

attributes which are considered at the time of

writing to be most significant and which the

Trust should seek to conserve. It will never be perfect but it should be as good as

possible.xxv

4

The period was also marked by the emergence of

several competing value typologies, each with

overlapping, intertwined criteria designed to satisfy

the heritage reality of the author, and by the creation of the Nara Document on Authenticity, which

promoted the concepts of self-actualization, but in a

culturally-truthful manner.xxvi

Although there had been wide-spread adoption of the

empirical system in Canada during the 1980s, this

period also witnessed research and usage of the

cultural significance approach by both federal and provincial governments.xxvii By the mid 1990s,

Parks Canada had adopted a form of this approach in

its 1994 Cultural Resource Management Policy,

which called for the identification of heritage values

to facilitate the crafting of a Commemorative

Integrity Statement for each National Historic

Site.xxviii The widespread usage of the cultural

significance approach did not emerge across Canada until 2001 with the launching of the Historic Places

Initiative. Each of the federal, provincial and

territorial partners is responsible for preparing

Statements of Significance for the formally-

recognized historic places within their jurisdiction

which identify and explain the heritage value of each

place. Although only four years old, the HPI has

resulted in a substantial shift in the use of the cultural significance approach as provincial and local

governments have joined with the federal government

in adopting this method to recognize places of

heritage value.

Creating Heritage in Saskatchewan Saskatchewan has a long history of preserving places

associated with its heritage. The efforts of the

residents of Saskatoon in 1911 to relocate and restore

the community‟s first school house, a mere six years

after the formation of the province and 23 years after

the erection of the building, are a testament to this

long-standing concern for tangible objects of heritage. A spate of heritage building demolitions or

near demolitions in the late 1960s and early 1970s

across Saskatchewan, and indeed across Canada,

prompted the provincial government to consider the

creation of some form of legislation to protect

historic buildings. After significant study and two

ineffective acts, the province passed The Heritage

Property Act in 1980 (hereafter, The Act). One of the most encompassing legislations of its type in Canada

at the time of its creation, The Act remains a

powerful piece of heritage legislation. Today, The

Act is administered by the Heritage Resources

Branch (HRB) of the Department of Culture, Youth

and Recreation.

Intertwined with the history of The Act has been the

evolving concept of value-based evaluation. The first

reference to values can be found in a draft of the “Evaluation of Government Buildings” form

developed in November, 1976.xxix A study of

available documents on the methods to evaluate

heritage property, undertaken by the then

Saskatchewan Department Culture and Youth in

1978, summarized that those systems which were

non-quantitative in approach featured three basic

groups of criteria—historical value, architectural value and practical value.xxx The study went on to

recommend the use of quantitative systems as more

appropriate for Saskatchewan‟s needs.xxxi

In 1980, The Act outlined the province‟s desire to

protect heritage properties significant for any one of

eight previously-identified values. Surprisingly, the

new evaluation form that was drafted in March 1981 only contains one reference to the term “values”.xxxii

Rather, the Introduction outlines how evaluation must

be based on “architectural and historical attributes”

and “elements of environmental and economic

viability”, with a heavy scoring emphasis on the

architectural component.xxxiii Furthermore, the

Introduction, which features a quantitative evaluation

adapted from Kalman, also states that “the evaluation is clearly separated into sections of heritage

significance and viability. It is the desire here, to

differentiate the academic side of the exercise, from

the practical realities of conserving the site.”xxxiv

The inclusion of this statement reflects one of the

earlier-mentioned concerns with this form of

evaluation - a reliance on the input of specialists to

complete the process.

Paralleling the establishment and implementation of

the evaluation process was the development of a

thematic framework to guide the research and

recognition process. Drawn from similar studies

done by Parks Canada (1979-80) and the Province of

Alberta (1980), the Saskatchewan plan broke down

regional history into “its component parts” so that priorities could be determined for formally

recognizing places based upon four categories:

chronological thematic, human activities,

geographical and site type.xxxv Although neither

this 1983 plan, nor several subsequent revisions, were

ever officially adopted as Department policy, they

were used informally help guide designations made

under the heritage property program.

The evaluation form, criteria and guidelines, except

for a few minor corrections and term clarifications,

remained unchanged until 2002. In that year the

5

process of nomination for Provincial Heritage

Property was changed to facilitate and encourage the

submission of complete nominations from the general

public, in place of the former system of Department staff researching and preparing all submissions. With

this change, it became apparent that the existing

quantitative evaluation system was problematic as it

relied too heavily on “expert” architectural and

economic viability analysis and offered limited

opportunities to draw out the community values

which were driving the nominations. As well, the old

system was not easily adapted to archaeological sites, landscapes and movable property, all eligible for

designation under The Act. As a result, an overhaul

of the evaluation process was commenced. Some

initial tweaking of the program guidelines and

objectives resulted in the quantitative scoring system

being replaced by three broad categories of

evaluation for proposed Provincial Heritage

Properties: conveyance of heritage-related value, representation of important social, cultural,

economic, or political history, and demonstration of

historical association with persons, or events of

significance to Saskatchewan.xxxvi The growing

knowledge of and experience with heritage value

evaluation, largely a result of the work undertaken by

HRB staff in drafting Statements of Significance for

the CRHP, led to a thorough review of the Provincial Heritage Property designation program and its

associated documents beginning in late 2004. Now

in draft form, the package of documents outlines a

new system for evaluating properties based on their

provincial significance in five value categories:

historic, cultural, architectural, scientific, and

aesthetic. The nomination form clearly spells out

definitions for each of these values and asks the nominator to identify why the property is believed to

be provincially significant under each category. The

evaluation form mimics the nomination form,

requiring the Saskatchewan Heritage Advisory Board

(SHAB) to answer yes or no to provincial

significance in each category. SHAB must, for each

category, also articulate why they do or do not think a

property meets the significance requirement. To be recommended for designation, the property only has

to be considered provincially significant in one

category. Other factors, such as site viability,

condition and adherence to the thematic plan are also

considered in a yes/no manner, but separately, so as

to clearly distinguish the determination of heritage

value from any evaluation of the changeable or non-

critical aspects of the property. This decision to move to a more open evaluation process is more than

just a policy change. Rather, it is a reflection of the

trend towards more participatory government

programs and heightened appreciation for the diverse

range of individuals, architectural styles and activities

valued and recognized at the community level.xxxvii

The new guidelines and forms have recently been

reviewed by SHAB and further consultation is being discussed prior to full implementation.

The move towards the cultural significance approach

is not only taking place in regard to Provincial

Heritage Properties but also in relation to the

Municipal Heritage Property program. Since 2003,

the HRB has recruited a handful of staff to work with

the officials from Saskatchewan‟s municipalities to draft Statements of Significance for the heritage

properties they designated so as to meet the

information needs for the CRHP. This is often

challenging work. Saskatchewan has over 400

municipal governments which have designated

heritage properties since 1980, many of which are

only responsible for one or two designations. Many

of the bylaws, orders and other documents developed at the time of recognition provide poor or no

justification as to why the property was designated.

In other cases, these reasons for recognition have

been lost in the annals of time. Current municipal

officials are often unaware of the reasons for

designation and, sometimes, unaware that the

property was even designated. In other cases, the

reasons have changed, become outdated and/or new reasons have been suggested. To meet these

challenges and complete the Statements of

Significance, the HRB has three approaches. HRB

staff will research and write approximately 70% of

the Statements, primarily for those properties located

in small or rural communities. Those municipalities

which have larger numbers of designations, and staff

tasked to work with their heritage property designations, will be contracted to complete about

10% of the total. Individuals and organizations with

interest or expertise in heritage properties will be

contracted by the HRB to complete the remaining

20% of the statements.

Key to work being undertaken by the HRB,

particularly with so many of the statements being generated by Department staff, is avoiding the

perceptions of elitism in the work. Heeding the

advise offered by Randall Mason who suggested, “a

professional study of values must be done in parallel

with understanding and consulting with the

stakeholders—i.e. the people and groups doing the

valuing,”xxxviii everybody involved in the writing

process is directed to work with a community-first approach. All properties are visited. The designating

authority and property owners are contacted to

discuss the heritage values held by the property and

reasons for designation listed on the bylaws, with

6

others in the community contacted at the suggestion

or request of the municipality, or as dictated by the

research. As well, all completed statements are sent

to the municipality to be approved by Council before being sent to CRHP. In doing so, not only does HRB

ensure that the community is involved in the

interpretation of their heritage and that the same

authority which bestowed the designation as

representative of the community has an opportunity

to provide the final approval for the statements, but

also that new concepts related to the cultural

significance approach are disseminated. While the level of outreach and partnership building involved in

this process is a change for the HRB, as Kate Clark of

English Heritage stated “all of this means new ways

of working for heritage practitioners. We have had to

become facilitator rather than dictators. Site

management planning has become a process of

articulating rather than imposing value, of learning to

stand back and listen to people.”xxxix However, the recent comment received from a rural municipal

official that “if the government says it‟s right, then it

must be right” in response to a Statement of

Significance sent for approval, suggests that there is

still work to be done to make the communities feel a

part of the program.xl

Last Thoughts

At the outset of this paper, the park visitor‟s comment

(“why are you protecting this crap”) was held up as

an example of the conflicting views of heritage that

exist in society. Indeed, the term heritage means many things to many people. The evolution of the

definition over time has blurred it to the point that

heritage may be inclusive of almost anything, or,

looked at in another way, as “far too ambiguous to

permit simple definition.”xli What has become

clear through this process is that heritage is not

intrinsic within old things but, rather, a constructed

ideal, an invention created by each generation for its purposes. If the next generation chooses to accept the

items passed on to them as their heritage, that is their

business—not something we can force them to do.

Our objective should be to best articulate the values

of those properties we have chosen as our heritage so

that those in the future can make an informed choice

about which properties they will choose to perpetuate

as their heritage. The ways of assessing the significance of heritage places have evolved in

consort with the definition of heritage. What was

once the domain of chance and individual, usually

elite, opinion has emerged as a highly structured,

more inclusive process that seeks to draw on the

value judgements of the masses.

The work of the Heritage Resources Branch in

relation to the Heritage Property program offers a

good example of this transformation. During the 25

years since the implementation of The Heritage Property Act in 1980, the program has moved from

recognition being driven by architectural and viability

attributes, usually determined by academics, toward

recognition based on broad and equally-ranked values

articulated by the community. In doing so, Branch

officials have strived to move to the role of

facilitators in assisting individuals and communities

to work with specialists in recognizing and conserving heritage properties and articulating the

values of these places and objects. This is a crucial

step. As Hareven and Langenbach point out,

This is not to deny the value of the scholar‟s

definition of worth, based on comparative

historical or architectural criteria. But

conservation broadly considered must juxtapose general criteria of social history and

architectural analysis with the meaning that

buildings have for local rehabilitation in terms

of personal experience. Preservation is in a

sense a community act. It is as important as a

process as in its results, contributing to the

mutual education of people who see beauty and

value in terms of architecture or of a building‟s place in the history of engineering, technology,

or town planning, and those who know simply

that the buildings and places are meaningful in

terms of their own lives.xlii

While there is still more work to do, the program

changes implemented during the past few years are

working to encourage greater engagement by people and communities in evaluating and re-inventing their

heritage and ensuring that values held by the people

of Saskatchewan around their heritage are better

understood and appreciate.

i The views and opinions expressed in this paper are

those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Government of Saskatchewan or the Government

of Canada. I would like to thank Victoria Angel, Registrar, Canadian Register of Historic Places and Joan

Kannigan-Fairen, former Senior Heritage Policy Advisor, Saskatchewan Department of Culture, Youth

and Recreation, for their invaluable comments on the earlier drafts of this paper.

ii Peter Frood, “The Historic Places Initiative: A

National Framework to Conserve Canada‟s Built Heritage” Plan (Summer, 2003), 29-32.

7

iii Michael Kammen, In the Past Lane: Historical

Perspectives on American Culture (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 215; Preamble”, The Venice

Charter. International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), 1964 (as viewed at

http://www.icomos.org/venice_charter.html, April 10, 2005); Convention Concerning the Protection of

Cultural and Natural Heritage,” United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 1972

(as viewed at http://whc.unesco.org/archive/convention-en.pdf April 10, 2005)

iv Jean Friesen, “Introduction: Heritage Futures,” Prairie

Forum, Vol 15, No 2 (Fall 1990), 195. v Amongst the multitude of definitions that emerged

during this period, key are those offered in Penina

Coopersmith with Richard Hall, Heritage by Design (Ottawa: Ministry of State Urban Affairs Canada,

1977), 12-13; Louis Applebaum and Jacques Hebert, co-chairmen, Report of the Federal Cultural Policy

Review Committee (Ottawa: Department of Communications, 1982), 105; “Charter for the

Preservation of Quebec‟s Heritage: The Deschambault Declaration”, ICOMOS French Speaking Committee,

1982 (as viewed at http://www.icomos.org/docs/deschambault.html.en, April 10, 2005), Keith Neufeld, Prairie Provinces

Caucus Final Report (Regina: Parks Canada & Canadian Plains Research Centre, 1985), 2.

vi "The Heritage Property Act," Statutes of

Saskatchewan, 1979-80, Chapter H-2.2, s 2.i(1980). vii

Uffe Juul Jensen, “Cultural Heritage, Liberal Education and Human Flourishing: in Avarami, Mason

and de la Torre, Values and Heritage Conservation, 38. Other authors who have referred to the invented nature

of heritage include Jean Friesen, “Introduction: Heritage Futures”, 193; David Lowenthal, “Stewarding

the Past in a Perplexing Present,” in Erica Avrami, Randall Mason and Marta de la Torre, Values and

Heritage Conservation (Los Angeles, The Getty Conservation Institute, 2000), 22; Susan Pearce, “The

Making of Cultural Heritage” in Avrami, Mason and de la Torre, Values and Heritage Conservation, 62-63.

viii

Silvio Mendes Zanchetti and Jukka Jokilehto,

“Values and Urban Conservation Planning: Some Reflections on Principles and Definitions,” Journal of

Architectural Conservation No 1 (March 1997), 37; Thomas King, Patricia Parker Hickman and Gary Berg,

Anthropology in Historic Preservation: Caring for Culture’s Clutter (New York: Academic Press, 1977), 13.

ix Charles Hosmer Jr., Presence of the Past: A History

of the Preservation Movement in the United States

Before Williamsburg (New York: G.P. Putnam‟s Sons,

1965), 299-300. x King, Hickman, Berg, Anthropology in Historic

Preservation: 13; Hosmer, Presence of the Past: 301;

Don Kerr, “In Defence of the Past: A History of Saskatchewan Heritage Preservation, 1922-1983”

Prairie Forum Vol 15 NO.2 (Fall 1990), 283-284. In his article, Kerr identifies the initial list of buildings

considered for heritage protection conservation by the Province, drafted in 1948. The list consists of Hudson‟s

Bay Company and North West Mounted Police forts, an 1885 battlefield, a public school, a post office and a

number of houses of the provinces early Anglo-Saxon elite.

xi Zanchetti and Jokilehto, “Values and Urban

Conservation Planning: Some Reflections on Principles and Definitions,” Journal of Architectural Conservation

No 1 (March 1997), 37. xii

From The Complete Works of Sir John Vanbrugh, Vol 4 (1928), page 29 as in Sir John Summerson, Heavenly

Mansions (London: The Cresset Press, 1949), 220. xiii

Zanchetti and Jokilehto, “Values and Urban Conservation Planning: Some Reflections on Principles and Definitions,” Journal of Architectural Conservation

No 1 (March 1997), 37. xiv

The Pocket Oxford Dictionary of Current English, 8th Edition, ed. Della Thompson (Oxford: Clarendon

Press, 1992), 1017. xv

Randall Mason, “Assessing Values in Conservation Planning: Methodological Issues and Choices” in Marta

de la Torre, ed. Assess the Values of Cultural Heritage (Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 2002);

Marja-Leena Ikkala, “Should Sausage Be Protected?” International Council on Monuments and Sites Website

(viewed at http://www.international.icomos.org/20th_heritage/ikkal

a.htm April 23, 2005) xvi

Summerson, Sir John. (1949) Heavenly Mansions, 221.

xvii

“Convention Concerning the Protection of World

Cultural and Natural Heritage: Adopted by the General Conference at its seventeenth session Paris, 16

November, 1972,” United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Website (viewed at

http://whc.unesco.org/archive/convention-en.pdf, April 23, 2005). xviii

William Thompson, Coordinator, “Winnipeg‟s Historic Warehouse Area: Its revitalisation through

conservation,” (Winnipeg, 1976), vi; Marc Denhez,

8

Heritage Fights Back (Winnipeg: Fitzhenry &

Whiteside, 1978), 38-40. xix

Harold Kalman, The Evaluation of Historic Buildings (Ottawa: Parks Canada, 1979)

xx

Ibid, 6.

xxi

Ibid, 29.

xxii

The Australia ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation

of Places of Cultural Significance, (Australia ICOMOS, 1981) as in Judy Oberlander, Harold Kalman and Robert

Lemon, Principles of Heritage Conservation (Victoria: Province of British Columbia, 1989), 32-34. The Burra

Charter was revised again in 1999 but for the terms of this paper any references to The Burra Charter will be

regards to the 1981 version unless noted. xxiii

Guidelines to the Burra Charter: Cultural Significance, (Australia ICOMOS, 1984) as in

Oberlander, Kalman and Lemon, Principles of Heritage Conservation, 35-38.

xxiv

Ibid, 37.

xxv

“Statements of Significance: What Matters and Why” The National Trust Website (accessed at

http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/environment/html/peo_com/papers/signif01.htm, April 24, 2005)

xxvi

Mason, “Assessing Values in Conservation Planning:

Methodological Issues and Choices,” 8-13; English Heritage, “Sustaining the Historic Environment: New

Perspectives on the Future” Discussion Document (1997): 1-12. These typologies include Bruno Frey‟s

criteria which includes monetary, option, existence, bequest, prestige and educational; English Heritage‟s

criteria which suggests cultural, educational and academic, economic, resource, recreational and

aesthetic; and Randal Mason‟s own criteria, which includes historical, cultural/symbolic, social,

spiritual/religious and aesthetic under the heading Sociocultural value and use(market) and nonuse

(nonmarket)—including existence, option and bequest under the heading Economic Values; Nara Document on

Authenticity, UNESCO, 1994 (accessed at http://whc.unesco.org/archive/nara94.htm October 29,

2005). xxvii

The Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office began using statements of significance in 1982 and

Parks Canada researched and incorporated values concepts in its cultural resource management policies during the decade. The Government of British

Columbia also researched and adopted elements of the cultural significance approach during the period.

Christina Cameron, “Discussion Paper for the Canadian

Conference on Historical Resources: Historic Sites and

Sustainable Development” (1990), Canadian Parks Service Interim Policy on Cultural Resource

Management (March 1990); William Huot, “Heritage Significance Discussion Paper” (British Columbia

Heritage Conservation Branch, January 1985), Victoria Angel, Personal Communication (July, 2005).

xxviii

Parks Canada, “Cultural Resource Management

Policy,” (Ottawa, 1994), 3-12. xxix

“Evaluation of Government Buildings—Draft”, (November 10, 1976), CYR: File GR 165

xxx

“Analysis of the Available Documentation on the

Methods Used to Evaluate Heritage Property”, (no date), CYR: File GR 165. The suggested 1978 date for the

documents is based upon the inclusion in the survey of Tom White‟s “Proposal to S.H.A.B.” dated March, 1978

but the lack of reference to Marc Denhez‟s Heritage Fights Back, (1978) and Harold Kalman‟s The

Evaluation of Historic Buildings (1979), two of the seminal works on this topic during the period.

xxxi

Ibid, 3.

xxxii

“Heritage Property Designation Criteria (Structures)—Draft,” Saskatchewan Culture and Youth

(March, 1981), CYR: File 165. xxxiii

Ibid, 1. xxxiv

Ibid. xxxv

Mark Rasmussen, “The Initiation of a Heritage Resource Systems Plan for Saskatchewan: Evaluative

Frameworks--Draft” Saskatchewan Culture and Recreation (August 1983), CYR GR 523(c) : Master

Plan xxxvi

“Guide to Preparing a Nomination,” Saskatchewan

Culture, Youth and Recreation website(accessed at http://www.cyr.gov.sk.ca/assets/doc/PHP%20Designatio

n%20Documents/2004-05%20Guide%20to%20Preparing%20a%20PHP%20No

mination%20(Sep%202004).doc on November 13, 2005)

xxxvii

These ideas have been addressed by many,

including Mason, “Fixing Historic Preservation: A Constructive Critique of “Significance”: 64-71;

Lowenthal, “Stewarding the Past in a Perplexing Present”: 18-25; Howard Green, “The Social

Construction of Heritage Significance,” in Preservation of What for Whom? A Critical Look at Historical Significance (Ithasca, New York: The National Council

for Preservation Education, 1998) 89; Erica Avrami, “Values and Heritage Conservation.” Getty

Conservation Institute Newsletter 15.2 (Summer 2000)

9

(viewed at

http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications/newsletters15_2/news2.html, April 5, 2005).

xxxviii

Mason, “Fixing Historic Preservation,” 68-69.

xxxix

Kate Clark, Preserving What Matters: Value-Led

Planning for Cultural Heritage Sites” GCI Newsletter 16.3 (Fall 2001), Getty Institute Website (accessed at

http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publicatons/newsletters/16_3/feature.html viewed April 5, 2005).

xl The comment was made by an unnamed municipal

official from the Village of Alsask to Michael Thome, Project Officer, Saskatchewan Department of Culture,

Youth and Recreation, November 9, 2005. xli

Alan Gordon, “Heritage and Authenticity: The Case of Ontario‟s Sainte-Marie-amoung-the-Hurons,” The

Canadian Historical Review 85 (September 2004), 508. xlii

Tamara Hareven and Randolph Langenbach, “Living Places, Work Places and Historical Identity,” in David

Lowenthal and Marcus Birney, ed. Our Past Before us: Why do We Save It? (London: Temple Smith, 1981),

122.

Bibliography

Published Materials

Alanen, Arnold and Robert Z. Melnick, ed.

Preserving Cultural Landscapes in America.

Baltimore: The John Hopkins University

Press, 2000.

Applebaum, Louis and Jacques Hebert. Report of the

Federal Cultural Policy Review Committee.

Ottawa: Government of Canada,

Department of Communications, 1982.

Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities,

Revised Edition. New York: Verso, 1995.

Ashworth, G.J. and J.E. Tunbridge. The Tourist-

Historic City. New York: Pergamon, 2000.

Avrami, Erica, “Values and Heritage Conservation”

GCI Newsletter 15.2 (Summer 2000), Getty

Institute Website (accessed at http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publicato

ns/newsletters/15_2/news2.html viewed

April 5, 2005).

Avrami Erica, Randall Mason and Marta de la Torre.

Values and Heritage Conservation. Los

Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute,

2000: 18-25.

Binney, Marcus, “Oppression to Obsession,” in

David Lowenthal and Marcus Binney, ed.

Our Past Before Us: Why Do We Save It?

London: Temple Smith, 1981: 203-212.

Bluestone, Daniel, “Challenges for Heritage Conservation and the Role of Research on

Values” in Erica Avrami, Randall Mason

and Marta de la Torre. Values and Heritage

Conservation. Los Angeles: The Getty

Conservation Institute, 2000: 65-67.

Carr, Edward Hallett. What is History? New York:

Vintage Books, 1961.

Clark, Kate, “Preserving What Matters: Value-Led

Planning for Cultural Heritage Sites” GCI

Newsletter 16.3 (Fall 2001), Getty Institute Website (accessed at

http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publicato

ns/newsletters/16_3/feature.html viewed

April 5, 2005).

Coopersmith, Penina with Richard C. Hall. Heritage

By Design. Ottawa: Government of

Canada, Ministry of State Urban Affairs,

1977.

Denhez, Marc. Heritage Fights Back. Winnipeg:

Fitzhenry and Whiteside, 1978.

Fowler, Peter. The Past in Contemporary Society

Then, Now. New York: Routledge, 1992.

Fram, Mark. Well Preserved, Third Revised Edition.

Erin, Ontario: The Boston Mills Press,

2003.

Friesen, Jean. “Introduction: Heritage Futures”

Prairie Forum, Vol 15, No 2 (Fall 1990):

193-196.

Frood, Peter, “The Historic Places Initiative: A

National Framework to Conserve Canada‟s

Built Heritage” Plan (Summer, 2003): 29-

32.

10

Gordon, Alan, “Heritage and Authenticity: The Case

of Ontario‟s Sainte-Marie-amoung-the-

Hurons,” The Canadian Historical Review

85 (September 2004): 507-531.

Government of Canada. Report of the Royal Commission on the National Development in

the Arts, Letters and Sciences, 1949-1951.

Ottawa: Kings Printer, 1951.

Green, Howard. “The Social Construction of

Heritage Significance,” in Preservation of

What for Whom? A Critical Look at

Historical Significance. Ithasca, New York:

The National Council for Preservation

Education, 1998: 85-94.

Hosmer, Charles B. Presence of the Past: A History

of the Preservation Movement in the United States Before Williamsburg. New York:

G.P. Putnam‟s Sons, 1965.

Hareven, Tamara K. and Randolph Langenbach, “Living Places, Work Places and Historical

Identity,” in David Lowenthal and Marcus

Binney, ed. Our Past Before Us: Why Do

We Save It? London: Temple Smith, 1981:

109-123.

Hunter, Michael, “The Preconditions of Preservation:

A Historical Perspective” in David Lowenthal and Marcus Binney, Our Past

Before Us: Why Do We Save It? (London:

Temple Smith, 1981): 22-32.

Ikkala, Marja-Leena, “Should Sausage Be

Protected?” International Council on

Monuments and Sites Website (viewed at

http://www.international.icomos.org/20th_heritage/ikkala.htm April 23, 2005)

Jensen, Uffe Juul, “Cultural Heritage, Liberal

Education, and Human Flourishing” in Erica Avrami, Randall Mason and Marta de la

Torre. Values and Heritage Conservation.

Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation

Institute, 2000: 138-43.

Kalman, Harold. The Evaluation of Historic

Buildings. Ottawa: Parks Canada, 1979.

Kammen, Michael. Mystic Chords of Memory. New

York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1991.

Kammen, Michael. In the Past Lane: Historical

Perspectives on American Culture. New

York: Oxford University Press, 1997.

Kaufman, Ned, “Historic Places and the Diversity Deficit in Heritage Conservation” CRM:

The Journal of Heritage Stewardship, Vol 1,

No. 2 (Summer 2004): 68-85.

Kerr, Don. “In Defence of the Past: A History of

Saskatchewan Heritage Preservation, 1922-

1983” Prairie Forum, Vol 15, No 2 (Fall

1990): 277-300.

King, Thomas, Patricia Parker Hickman and Gary

Berg. Anthropology in Historic

Preservation: Caring for Culture’s Clutter.

New York: Academic Press, 1977.

Lowenthal, David, “Dilemmas of Preservation,” in

David Lowenthal and Marcus Binney, ed.

Our Past Before Us: Why Do We Save It?

London: Temple Smith, 1981: 213-236.

Lowenthal, David. Possessed by the Past: The

Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History.

Toronto: The Free Press, 1996.

Lowenthal, David, “Stewarding the Past in a

Perplexing Present” in Erica Avrami, Randall Mason and Marta de la Torre.

Values and Heritage Conservation. Los

Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute,

2000: 18-25.

Mason, Randall, “Assessing Values in Conservation

Planning: Methodological Issues and

Choices” in Marta de la Torre, ed.

Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage.

Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation

Institute, 2002: 5-30.

Mason, Randall, “Fixing Historic Preservation: A

Constructive Technique of „Significance‟”

Places Vol 16, No.1 (2003): 65-71.

Neufeld, Keith. Prairie Provinces Caucus Final

Report. Regina: Parks Canada & Canadian

Plains Research Centre, 1985.

Oberlander, Judy, Harold Kalman and Robert Lemon.

Principles of Heritage Conservation.

Victoria: Government of British Columbia,

11

Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation

and Culture, 1989.

Pearce, Susan M, “The Making of Cultural Heritage” in Erica Avrami, Randall Mason and Marta

de la Torre. Values and Heritage

Conservation. Los Angeles: The Getty

Conservation Institute, 2000: 59-64.

Powell, Ken, “Leeds: „Obsolescence‟ and the

Destruction of the Inner City,” in David

Lowenthal and Marcus Binney, ed. Our Past

Before Us: Why Do We Save It? London:

Temple Smith, 1981: 143-157.

Sandell, Richard, ed. Museums, Society, Inequity.

New York: Routledge, 2002.

Summerson, Sir John. Heavenly Mansions. London:

The Crescent Press, 1949.

Taylor, C.J. Negotiating the Past: The Making of

Canada’s National Historic Parks and Sites.

Kingston: McGill-Queen‟s University

Press, 1990.

Thompson, William, Coordinator. “Winnipeg‟s

Historic Warehouse District Area: its

revitalization through conservation.” A

report prepared for Heritage Canada and the Manitoba Historical Society, Winnipeg,

1976.

Verdery, Katherine and Caroline Humphrey, ed. Property in Question: Value

Transformation in the Global Economy.

New York: Berg, 2004.

Weinberg, Nathan. Preservation in American Towns

and Cities. Boulder: Westview Press, 1979.

Zancheti, Silvio Mendes and Jukka Jokilehto,

“Values and Urban Conservation Planning:

Some Reflections on Principles and

Definitions” Journal of Architectural

Conservation No1 (March 1997): 37-51.

Lectures and Presentations

Bennett, Gordon, “Creating Heritage Conservation

Policies and Programs Based Upon Heritage

Values” as part of “Heritage Conservation:

What are our Values” Workshop, Simon

Fraser University, Vancouver, February 18,

2005.

Kerr, Alastair, “Why is it Important to Establish

Heritage Values?” as part of “Heritage

Conservation: What are our Values”

Workshop, Simon Fraser University,

Vancouver, February 18, 2005.

Luxton, Donald, “Determining Heritage Values in a

British Columbia Context: Are we half way

to Panama?” Lecture at Simon Fraser

University, Vancouver, February 17, 2005.

Luxton, Donald, “Hitting the Target: The Calibration of Values at the Community Level” as part

of “Heritage Conservation: What are our

Values” Workshop, Simon Fraser

University, Vancouver, February 18, 2005.

Mason, Randall, “Determining Heritage Values:

Connecting Theory and Practice” as part of

“Heritage Conservation: What are our

Values” Workshop, Simon Fraser

University, Vancouver, February 18, 2005.

Interviews and Personal Papers

Angel, Victoria, personal communication by

telephone and e-mail, (July-October, 2005).

Kanigan-Fairen, Joan, interview (July 21, 2005).

“SAHS Response to Draft Guidelines for the

Provincial Heritage Property Designation

Program” unpublished document dated July

28, 2001in authors possession.

Thome, Michael, personal communication,

November 9, 2005.

Primary Documents

Cameron, Christina. “Discussion Paper for the

Canadian Conference on Historical

12

Resources: Historic Sites and Sustainable

Development”. Parks Canada (1990).

“Canadian Parks Service Interim Policy on Cultural

Resource Management”, Parks Canada

(March 1990).

Canadian Register of Historic Places (accessed at www.historicplaces.ca on July 22, 2005).

“Charter for the Preservation of Quebec‟s Heritage:

The Deschambault Declaration”, ICOMOS

French Speaking Committee, 1982 (as

viewed at

http://www.icomos.org/docs/deschambault.h

tml.en, April 10, 2005).

“Convention Concerning the Protection of World

Cultural and Natural Heritage: Adopted by

the General Conference at its seventeenth

session Paris, 16 November, 1972,” United

Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Organization Website (viewed at

http://whc.unesco.org/archive/convention-en.pdf, April 23, 2005).

English Heritage, “Sustaining the Historic

Environment: New Perspectives on the

Future” Discussion Document (1997).

Heritage Forum 2002: Our Commitment to the

Future, Saskatchewan Architectural Heritage Society, (2002).

“The Heritage Property Act,” Statutes of

Saskatchewan, 1979-80, Chapter H-2.2, s.

2.i (1980).

“Historic Sites and Monuments of Canada,”

Department of Justice website (accessed at http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/H-4/ on July 23,

2005).

Huot, William, “Heritage Significance Discussion Paper,” British Columbia Heritage

Conservation Branch (January 1985).

Nara Document on Authenticity, UNESCO, 1994

(accessed at

http://whc.unesco.org/archive/nara94.htm

October 29, 2005).

Parks Canada, “Cultural Resource Management

Policy” (1994).

Parks Canada, “Guide to the Preparation of

Commemorative Integrity Statements”

(2002).

Parks Canada, The Canadian Register of Historic

Places. Canada‟s Historic Places Website

(accessed at

http://www.historicplaces.ca/acc-

hom_e.aspx on April 24, 2005).

Parks Canada Agency Website (various pages). Accessed at http://www.pc.gc.ca, July 10,

2005.

“Preamble”, The Venice Charter. International

Committee for the Conservation of

Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), 1964 (as

viewed at

http://www.icomos.org/venice_charter.html, April 10, 2005).

Saskatchewan Culture, Youth and Recreation:

Files GR 158: “Heritage Conservation”

GR 165: “Designation Criteria”

GR 166: “Heritage Property Act”

GR 523: “Master Plan”

Directory of Provincial and Municipal

Heritage Property in Saskatchewan

(accessed at

http://www.cyr.gov.sk.ca/heritage_propertie

s_search.html).

“Government of Saskatchewan Guidelines for the Provincial Heritage Property

Designation Program” unpublished

document dated November 21, 2000.

“Guide to Preparing a Nomination,”

Saskatchewan Culture, Youth and

Recreation website(accessed at

http://www.cyr.gov.sk.ca/assets/doc/PHP%20Designation%20Documents/2004-

05%20Guide%20to%20Preparing%20a%20

PHP%20Nomination%20(Sep%202004).doc

on November 13, 2005).

Frank Korvemaker, “A Thematic

Framework for Managing Saskatchewan‟s

Historic sites and Structures,” Saskatchewan Municipal Affairs, Culture and Housing

(March, 1999).

13

“Provincial Heritage Property Designation

Program” unpublished document dated May

13, 2002.

Rasmussen, Mark. “The Initiation of a

Heritage Resource Systems Plan for

Saskatchewan: Evaluative Framework”

unpublished draft dated August, 1983.

“Statements of Significance: What Matters and

Why” The National Trust Website (accessed

at

http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/environment

/html/peo_com/papers/signif01.htm, April

24, 2005).

“World Heritage Convention,” United Nations

Educational, Cultural and Scientific

Organization website (accessed at http://whc.unesco.org/ on July 22, 2005).