arch. Petar Petrov
Risk Analysis: Socialization of Heritage Sites in Bulgaria
Tutor: Hans Ibelings Annotation: From the last few years, one model of practice has been dominating the field of cultural heritage preservation in the local context of Bulgaria. I have coined the term ‘tourist attraction model’ for later orientation. It has distinctive characteristics such as: focus on archaeological remains from the medieval ages; the idea that heritage could be used for commercial profit via tourism; and intense restoration based on documentary unsupported hypothesis. This model is highly controversial and yet has received enormous social attention and media coverage. Its problematics have been widely discussed in terms of quality of planning, conservation expertise, financial tools, regulatory systems, political influence and other points of confrontation. Yet, one aspect remains less covered – the expected socialization. This is the way heritage is integrated within the city fabric and recognized by the local communities. The term defines the present-day purpose, to which heritage is adapted to, and the degree of its usefulness. Many concerns about the success of the local preservation practice have already been expressed. Among the experts in the field, a general pessimistic view prevails. Still, these are random statements, based on personal opinions and intuition. My goal, in this paper, is to clarify the topic and to provide a secure footing by answering the question: What risk points are likely to threaten the socialization of heritage places, which follow the tourist attraction model? The methodology I use is divided into two parts: ‘Observation Lens’ and ‘Theory Lens’ (Fig.1). In the first part I explain the model by defining the leading example: ‘The Case of Belchin’. Then I provide a well-selected array of case references, where the distinctive patterns of the model have been replicated. I conclude this part with four observations about the expected socialization, as preliminary results. I group them into two categories: ‘visitors’ and ‘locals’, regarding the initial goal: either to explore unknown culture, or to keep one’s own memory of the collective past. Having this in mind, I continue with the second part, where I conduct a theory research of the most contemporary literature in the field. I use the observations, made in the previous part, as guidelines to steer this endeavor. For the purpose of illustration, some of the researched topics are: the opposition between the dominant (authorized) approach of heritage sites preservation and more humble alternatives to it; the tourist industry, which surrounds a monument of culture, and the inevitable issue of authenticity and commodification; the process of building a nation and the role that physical representation of the past plays in it.
Fig.1 Research structure
Finally, I list four risk points: (1) non-competitive tourist products; (2) presenting sanitized and ‘staged’ heritage for tourist consumption only; (3) engaging heritage into political propaganda; (4) transforming heritage places into historic ghettoes. I give fair warning for a forthcoming socialization failure, as a cumulative effect. To drive the discussion further, I appeal for a more democratic / dialogical view over heritage protection based on participative processes. I emphasize on the common contradiction between ‘conservation’ and ‘change’, where heritage is recognized as a resource for development. Key Words: Heritage; socialization; risk; tourist attraction; civic engagement.