Social Contexts & Built Heritage - A Case Study of Alexandria, Egypt

Social Contexts & Built Heritage A case study of Alexandria, Egypt Yomna Ahmed Borg

December 2013

Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne Mémoire élaboré dans le cadre du Master Professionnel : Gestion des Sites du Patrimoine Culturel et Naturel et Valorisation Touristique (GSVT) Parcours « Heritage Management » dispensé en partenariat avec l‟Université Française d‟Egypte.

Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne Mémoire élaboré dans le cadre du Master Professionnel : Gestion des Sites du Patrimoine Culturel et Naturel et Valorisation Touristique (GSVT) Parcours « Heritage Management » dispensé en partenariat avec l‟Université Française d‟Egypte.

Social Contexts & Built Heritage A case study of Alexandria, Egypt Yomna Ahmed Borg

Under the supervision of: Prof. Fekri Hassan and Dr. Tarek Waly

December 2013 1

Contents List of Figures ............................................................................................................. 5 List of Tables .............................................................................................................. 7 Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................... 8 Abstract ...................................................................................................................... 9 Chapter One: Introduction ........................................................................................ 10 1.1 Overview ......................................................................................................... 10 1.2 Research Question ......................................................................................... 10 1.3 Thematic Concept ........................................................................................... 10 1.4 Research Problem .......................................................................................... 11 1.5 The Problématique .......................................................................................... 11 1.6 Literature survey ............................................................................................. 11 1.6.1 Towards the formation of first hypothesis (H1) ......................................... 11 1.6.2 Towards the formation of second hypothesis (H2) .................................... 12 1.7 Proposed hypotheses ..................................................................................... 17 1.8 Methodology ................................................................................................... 17 1.8.1 Descriptive ................................................................................................ 18 1.8.2 Explanatory ............................................................................................... 18 1.9 Thesis Structure .............................................................................................. 20 Chapter Two: The evolution of the heritage discipline and its social context ............ 22 2.1 Sub-Chapter One: The evolution of the heritage discipline in the European context. ................................................................................................................. 22 2.1.1 Overview: the creation of the field ............................................................. 22 2.1.2 The heritage discipline and the age of reason .......................................... 23 2.1.3 The heritage discipline and the romantic era ............................................ 23 2.1.4 The heritage discipline and modernism .................................................... 24 2.1.5 The heritage discipline and post-modernism ............................................ 25 2.1.6 The heritage discipline today .................................................................... 26 2.1.7 Concluding Remarks ................................................................................ 27 2.2 Sub-Chapter Two: The evolution of the heritage discipline in the Arab world. 28 2.2.1 Philosophy of conservation in the Arab world ........................................... 28 2.2.2 The system of „Waqf‟ ................................................................................ 28 2.2.3 The role of „Waqf‟ in conservation. ............................................................ 29 2.2.4 The „Waqf‟ system in Egypt ...................................................................... 30 2

2.2.5 Other factors contributing to social perception of heritage (the second half of the 20th century). ........................................................................................... 33 2.2.6 Concluding Remarks ................................................................................ 35 2.3 Concluding Remarks ....................................................................................... 35 Chapter Three: Historical Background of Alexandria ............................................... 36 3.1 Overview ......................................................................................................... 36 3.2 The foundation of Alexandria .......................................................................... 36 3.3 Timeline of Events in Alexandria (331 BC- 1805 AD) ..................................... 39 3.4 The Mohamed Ali Dynasty: Highlighting its impact on the development of Alexandria. .................................... 46 3.5 The post revolution era: Alexandria‟s urban expansion .................................. 54 3.5.1 The period between 1952-mid-1990‟s ...................................................... 54 3.5.2 The period between mid-1990‟s-current time (2013) ................................ 56 3.5 Concluding Remarks ....................................................................................... 58 Chapter Four: Current Situation ............................................................................... 59 4.1 Overview ......................................................................................................... 59 4.2 Statistics.......................................................................................................... 60 4.3Indicators ......................................................................................................... 60 4.4 Examples ........................................................................................................ 63 4.4.1Heritage buildings which have been demolished ....................................... 63 4.4.2 Heritage buildings threatened with demolition. ......................................... 71 4.4.3 Heritage buildings subjected to aggressions and encroachments ............ 77 4.5 Concluding remarks: ....................................................................................... 87 Chapter Five: Analysis of current situation ............................................................... 88 5.1 Overview ......................................................................................................... 88 5.2 Lack of appropriate urban expansion. ............................................................. 89 5.2.1 Overview ................................................................................................... 89 5.2.2 Confirmation ............................................................................................. 89 5.2.3 Concluding remarks .................................................................................. 90 5.3 Absence of political will ................................................................................... 90 5.3.1 Literature Survey ...................................................................................... 90 5.3.2 Alexandria ................................................................................................. 91 5.3.3 Concluding remarks .................................................................................. 93 5.4 Local and global socio-economic trends and pressures ................................. 93 5.4.1 Literature Survey ...................................................................................... 93 3

5.4.2 Alexandria ................................................................................................. 95 5.4.3 Concluding remarks .................................................................................. 99 5.5 Ineffective heritage education ......................................................................... 99 5.5.1 Literature review ....................................................................................... 99 5.5.2 Alexandria ............................................................................................... 100 5.5.3 Concluding Remarks .............................................................................. 104 5.6 Legislative drawbacks and impediments. ...................................................... 104 5.6.1 Literature Survey .................................................................................... 104 5.6.2 Alexandria ............................................................................................... 106 5.6.3 Concluding remarks ................................................................................ 111 5.7 Concluding remarks ...................................................................................... 111 Chapter Six: Summary and Final Remarks. ........................................................... 112 6.1 Summary....................................................................................................... 112 6.2 Limitations and suggestions for future research ............................................ 114 6.2.1 Concerning research methods ................................................................ 114 6.2.2 Concerning available data ...................................................................... 114 6.2.3 Concerning number of interviewees ....................................................... 114 6.3 Recommendations ........................................................................................ 115 6.4 Concluding Remarks ..................................................................................... 117 References and Bibliography ................................................................................. 118

4

List of Figures Figure 1- Showing Hippodamian street grid in Alexandria (Photo credits: academic research-architectural department-faculty of fine arts-Alexandria university 2012) .. 38 Figure 2- Alexandria during the British/French battles, 1801. Showing Lake Mariout and Lake Abou-Keir (Photo source: http://www.alexanderstomb.com) .................... 45 Figure 3- Showing Alexandriaâ€&#x;s urban expansion 1805-1905 (Abdel-Hakeem 1958) ................................................................................................................................. 51 Figure 4- Left: plan of the 'place des consuls' before the 1882 bombardment, (photo source: Awad 2009). Right: Photo of the same square after its reconstruction following the 1882 bombardments, showing it being opened up to the new cornice, (photo source: Haag. M, 2008) ................................................................................. 52 Figure 5- Showing urban development of the city of Alexandria, 1905-1955. (Photo source: Alexandria comprehensive plan till 2005- 1984 ) ......................................... 53 Figure 6- Showing urban development in Alexandria 1993 (Photo source: Azaz 2004) ........................................................................................................................ 55 Figure 7- Showing Built-up in Alexandria 2005 (Source: Researcher). .................... 57 Figure 8- showing Built-up in Alexandria 2005 (Source: Researcher) ...................... 57 Figure 9-View across Eastern Harbour towards Ramleh Station in 2010, (photo source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/omaradelph/10408490665/sizes/o/in/photostream/) ............................................................... 61 Figure 10- View across Eastern harbour from Ramleh Station in 2013, (photo source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/99808786@N06/9429776038/sizes/o/in/photostream/) ................................................................................................................................. 61 Figure 11- View of Bahary neighbourhood from Yacht club in 2008, (photo source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/93715485@N00/2346377092/)................................... 62 Figure 12- View of Bahary neighbourhood from Yacht club in 2013, (photo source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/niko-tine/8758692257/) ............................................... 62 Figure 13- Cinema Rialto: Far left: impression drawing by former Alexandrian artist, Camille Fox (photo source:http://camillefoxart.com/gallery.php?cat_id=71). Middle: photo taken in the 1980â€&#x;s, (photo source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kencta/536019435/). Far right: Before demolition, (photo source: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/4416652) ................................................ 64 Figure 14-Left: Inner view of cinema rialto during the advertised 'renovation'. Right: showing current situation. (photo criedts: Rana Elmahallawy .................................. 64 Figure 15- Left: Historic perspective of 'Rue Cherif Pasha', (photo source: http://aaha.ch/photos/cherif.htm), Right: Contemporary state of the same street showing minimal change, (photo credits: Rana Elmahallawy) .................................. 65 Figure 16- Left: Photo taken before demolition, (photo creidts: Ehab Zaher, photo source: http://thewallsofalex.blogspot.com). Right: Showing current situation (photo credits: Rana Elmahallawy). ..................................................................................... 66 Figure 17- Left: taken in 2007. Right: after demolition. (Photo credits: Dr Mohamed Adel El-Dessouki, photo source: http://thewallsofalex.blogspot.com) ...................... 67 5

Figure 18- Left: exterior after transformation to a boutique hotel. Right: Interior view of reception during its functioning as a boutique hotel. (Photo source: http://www.yadig.com) .............................................................................................. 68 Figure 19- Left: before any demolition attempts, (photo credits: (Photo credits: Dr Mohamed Adel El-Dessouki, photo source: http://thewallsofalex.blogspot.com).

Right: after first demolition attempt, 2011. (photo credits: Heba Mo‟nes, photo source: http://thewallsofalex.blogspot.com).............................................................. 69 Figure 20- after third demolition attempt, 2012, (photo credits: Marwa Taha, photo source: http://thewallsofalex.blogspot.com).............................................................. 69 Figure 21- Left: state while occupied by furniture store,2007. Right: current state.

(Photo credits: Dr Mohamed Adel El-Dessouki. Photo source: http://thewallsofalex.blogspot.com). ......................................................................... 70 Figure 22- Interior while the building was being emptied in preparation for demolition. (Photo credits: Emad Maher, Photo source: http://sotorkotebtbma2.blogspot.com ....................................................................... 70 Figure 24- Left: Figure 23- Left: eastern façade, after completion, 1922, (photo source: Britton 2011) ................................................................................................ 71 Figure 25- Villa Ambron. Left: showing degraded state of the artist studio designed

by Alessandro Loria, (photo source:AlexMed newsletter, nov-jan 2008). Right: showing current degraded state of villa, (photo source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk)73 Figure 26- Showing a protest stand in front of Cicurel villa-(photo credits: Arch Mohamed Abou Elkheir) ........................................................................................... 74 Figure 28 okalle menasce current (photo source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fassade_der_Gallery_Menasce,_TahrirPlatz,_Alexandria,_%C3%84gypten.jpg) .................................................................. 75 Figure 29- Far left: Showing façade degradation due to shop fronts. Middle: Showing façade degradation due to commercial signs. Far right: Showing degradation in inner court, due to informal commercial activity. (Photo source Khalil 2009) ................... 75 Figure 30 Villa Sabahi in its current state (photo credits: Ahmed El-Daly, photo source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/midoeldaly/3836486256/) ............................... 76 Figure 31- Villa Antoniadis. Left: before renovations, (photo source: http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/antoniadis.htm). Right Current state, (photo credits: Mahmoud Khaled) ....................................................................................... 82 Figure 32-Okalle Moneferato. Left: Current state. Right: showing degradation of facade due to shop fronts and commercial signs. (photo source: Khalil 2009) ........ 83 Figure 33- Left: showing degradation of inner court used as traditional coffee shop.

Right: showing degradation of inner façade and skylight. (photo source: Khalil 2009) ................................................................................................................................. 83 Figure 34- Left: showing informal additions as seen from facade. Right: taken from the roof, showing informal additions and corrosion of skylight. (photo source: Khalil 2009) ........................................................................................................................ 83 Figure 35- Hotel majestic in its original state, in 1910, (photo source: Awad 2008) . 84 Figure 36- hotel majestic- left: as described in first stage of aggression, (photo source: http://www.urbanharmony.org) Right: Current state after building of two illegal floors, November 2013. (photo source: SaveAlex) ......................................... 85 6

Figure 37- Left: Showing orginal, (photo criedts: Alexandria Habebti group). Right: Current situation, (Photo credits: Rana ElMahallawy) .............................................. 86 Figure 38- Left: Marhaba hotel, Orabi square –mansheya. Right: located in Safia Zaghlol Street, shop front degrading façade. (photo source: http://www.urbanharmony.org) ................................................................................. 87 Figure 39- Left: Shopfronts and commercial signs disfiguring buildings in Salah Salem street-Mansheya. Right: informal floors-Ramleh Station. (photo source: researcher) ............................................................................................................... 87 Figure 40- Winning entry of 'rialto mall' competition, adopts modern design approach foreign to surroundings, (photo source: Stanley- investment and real-estate) ....... 103

List of Tables Table 1- Showing population number in Alexandria 1897-1996 (Azaz 2004) ........... 54 Table 2- Showing population growth rate 1978-2006 (Denis 2013) ......................... 56

7

Acknowledgments I would like to extend my gratitude to a number of people without whom the completion of this work would not have been possible.

Firstly; to all the professors of this Master‟s program, for they have all been greatly helpful and informative however short their stay. I would specially like to thank; Dr Fekri Hassan, the director of this course, for always guiding me and providing invaluable advice , Tiziana Destino for her care and help even after she left her position as coordinator of the course and my supervisor, Dr Tarek Waly, for putting me on track and also for his continuous patience.

Secondly; to Save Alex (an Alexandrian pressure group working on saving what remains of Alexandria‟s heritage) for their invaluable help and all the information they provided. I would specially like to thank two of its founders; Arch. Ahmed Hassan Moustafa, for allowing me to interview him and for always helping and supporting me since my under-graduate years when he was my tutor, and Dr. Mohamed Adel ElDessouki, whom I only met two times but who provided me with much needed information and insight both during these meetings and through his blog; “The walls of Alexandria”.

Thirdly; to all my colleagues in the program who made this year enjoyable even at its worst. I would like to specially thank Mariana Adel for providing me with valuable advice and information at a much needed time. I would also like to thank all my friends outside the course for putting up with my unavailability.

Fourthly; to my family, my maternal grandparents for their continuous love and support, my brother for finding this program for me and my father for encouraging me to apply. Finally I would like to specially thank; my mother for being my role model and my fiancé whose support and belief in me was all that kept me going through all the times I wanted to give up.

8

Abstract The built heritage of the city of Alexandria, Egypt has been experiencing degradation, marginalization and demolition for many years, a problem which has significantly intensified following the 25th of January revolution (2011), to the point of becoming a real threat to the image of the city. The extent of the problem is clarified and its underlying causes explored, in belief that this is a vital first step needed for the formulation of an effective solution. It is argued that the principle cause of this problem is the social marginalization of built heritage in Alexandria. This marginalization is attributed to two main reasons, firstly; the globally promoted notion of heritage is not native to our culture (in Egypt) and thus not rooted in the belief system of the society, and secondly; Due to changes in contemporary social contexts, and the failure of built heritage in Alexandria to remain of relevance, attitudes of the society have changed towards it, five main aspects of the social context are then explored with their influence on Alexandriaâ€&#x;s built heritage studied, theses aspects are; the lack of appropriate urban extension, absence of political will, local and global socio-economic trends and pressures, ineffective heritage education and legislative drawbacks and impediments. These two main reasons are formulated as hypotheses and explored using qualitative research methods. The validity of both is confirmed and the complexity of the current situation of Alexandriaâ€&#x;s built heritage is established, emphasising the need for a comprehensive strategic solution.

9

Chapter One Introduction 1.1 Overview The focus of this thesis is; the degraded situation of Alexandria‟s built heritage. The interest on this topic was triggered by the aggravation of this situation following the 25th of January revolution 2011, where a deterioration of Alexandria‟s built environment in general was widely sensed by the Alexandrian society. As an Alexandrian myself, I witnessed the situation first hand, and being interested in heritage, noticed the intensity of aggression towards the built heritage in particular, observing the social disregard of what was being lost. As such, it became of personal interest to explore why and how this situation came to be, in hope that comprehending its causes will help in formulating an effective solution, for sustaining the built environment of a city I personally love.

This research has two main aims; the first, to expose the extent of the current situation and the second, to comprehend its causes, exploring the various trends and pressures (both locally and globally) which have resulted in the current situation.

This research does not aim to offer solutions, it will serve only as a starting point towards the formation of an effective remedy, this is for two reasons, firstly, the complexity of the situation and secondly, the limited time scope of this work.

This research will adopt qualitative research methods, relying on; survey of related literature, personal observation, online focus groups and interviews, both short and in-depth, for data collection, while using comparative analysis, critical analysis and narrative analysis, as techniques for analysing the collected data.

1.2 Research Question Why is the built heritage of the city of Alexandria, Egypt, experiencing intense degradation, marginalization and destruction?

1.3 Thematic Concept This research revolves around the topic of built heritage „marginalization‟, this term is defined as: the social process of becoming or being made marginal. The main aim is exploring the underlying causes of Alexandria‟s built heritage becoming marginalized, in the belief that the accurate identifying of causes of a problem places it in perspective and facilitates its effective control and remedy.

10

1.4 Research Problem The built heritage of the city of Alexandria, Egypt, has been subjected to degradation, marginalization and destruction for many years. This problem has significantly intensified following the 25th of January revolution (2011), to the point of becoming a real threat to the image of the city.

1.5 The Problématique The scientific perspective of addressing the above research question will focus on its underlying causes, thus the problématique will be phrased as follows; What are the underlying causes or pressures which have resulted in this recognized degradation, marginalization and destruction of the built heritage of Alexandria, Egypt.

To conceive proposed answers for this problématique, relevant scientific literature, was examined. In addition to helping in the shaping of the proposed hypotheses, this examination and critique of related literature, resulted in the identification of key concepts and definitions, imperative to the comprehension of the scientific perspective and argument developed by this thesis.

1.6 Literature survey 1.6.1 Towards the formation of first hypothesis (H1) Imperative to the formation of proposed hypotheses to the research question was the comprehension of the notion of heritage, how and why it is values and devalued.

Thus a survey of related literature was undertaken.

As such, it became clear that the various international charters and conventions, over the years, has defined immovable cultural heritage and why they were to be deemed of value, using a similar approach, thus creating the traditional notion of heritage. For example ICOMOS 1968, defines immovable heritage as; “Archaeological and historic or scientific sites, structures or other features of historic, scientific, artistic or architectural value, whether religious or secular, including groups of traditional structures, historic quarters in urban and rural built up areas and ethnological structures of previous cultures still extant in valid form...” This is supported by UNESCO 1972; where immovable cultural heritage was divided into three categories; monuments, groups of buildings and sites, each separately defined, but with common valuation approach; “…of outstanding value from the point of view of history, art or science. In 1978, ICOMOS added to these, social and ethnological points of view. The definitions mentioned above establish the idea that; 11

elements of the built environment could be designated as cultural heritage if they are deemed of value from the points of view of specialist in the mentioned field, and should as such be protected.

The above seemed in contrast with the more modern idea argued in the Getty report entitled, values & heritage conservation; only when the belief system of regional or global society reflects the importance of a certain physical entity, can it be recognised and conserved as cultural heritage. The same report, in an article under the name of; “The making of cultural heritage” Susan M. Pearce (Pearce 2000) promoted the fact that; the notion of heritage as we know it today (or as it is promoted) “relates to attitudes that emerged and developed in Europe…” and that “…like most modernistic notions, ideas of heritage have spread over the world, but we must remember that they are not native to most cultures and are not by any means necessarily the only or best way of constructing a relationship of identity on the cusp between the past and present.” This idea was further explored in the context of the „Muslim‟ world in (Nour 2012), where it is stated that; since the establishment of the modern discipline of heritage conservation, in Europe by the end of the 18th century, it has been practised as part the general social context, and has evolved and changed accordingly. He compares this to the „Muslim‟ world, where he claims that a totally different approach to this subject was followed, based on different standards and priorities, and that due to the waves of westernization and colonization in the 19th century, the European approach was introduced, which resulted in a conflict, influencing social attitudes and appreciation.

The above led to the formation of my first hypothesis; in answer to the reason behind the marginalization of build heritage in Alexandria, Egypt. Considering it as part of the „Muslim‟ world and that the notion of heritage is not native to its culture, I proposed the following hypothesis; The globally promoted notion of heritage is not native to our culture (in Egypt) and thus not rooted in the belief system of the society.

1.6.2 Towards the formation of second hypothesis (H2) In light of this vitality of social appreciation of heritage, further literature survey led to the formation of a better understand of the concept of heritage, and thus of the various contextual aspects influencing its condition.

12

Daniel Bluestone, in “Challenges for heritage conservation and the role of research on values” (Bluestone 2000), claims that; “Preservation and conservation work often unfolds amidst unstated or under-theorized assumptions about the importance of conserving them”. He continues, claiming that; to effectively develop ideas on how to go about heritage conservation, the dynamic nature of culture must be better comprehended, noting that; “aspects of every culture are often being transformed, defined and redefined, valued and devalued” and that as a result; “cultural heritage is a dynamic process”. As such values and appreciation of various heritage entities are in continual change.

This is in addition to Brian Graham‟s contribution to defining heritage in; “Heritage as knowledge: capital or culture”(Graham 2000), where he claims that, conceptions of heritage are actually „social constructions‟, imagined, defined and articulated within cultural and economic contexts. He emphasises that, heritage is conceptualized as the meanings attached in the present to the past, further claiming that these „meanings‟ are defined within social political and cultural contexts. He argues that as such; physical entities regarded as heritage by professionals may be discarded or marginalized as the demands for the present changes or new meanings are developed.

This notion is further supported by the idea promoted in (Avrami, Mason and Torre 2000) that; the values people draw from heritage and the functions they serve within the society are the real source of meaning of heritage. This is in addition to the following statement; “If historical elements are not correctly integrated in daily life, protection efforts would fail. The past would simply become both a cultural stumbling block and burdensome to the public” The combination of the previous ideas, result in the formation of the notion that; valuation of cultural heritage is dynamic and that for any physical entity to be valued as such, it must be of relevance to contemporary social contexts. Thus the formation of my second proposed hypothesis: Due to changes in contemporary social contexts, and the failure of built heritage in Alexandria to remain of relevance, attitudes of the society have changed towards it.

Thus an understanding of contemporary social contexts with its various forces, which influence the built environment, is necessary for better comprehension of the nature of the problem and the formation of my sub-hypotheses. This is an idea confirmed in 13

(Avrami, Mason and Torre 2000, p 68),where emphasis is placed on the vitality of, responding to the demands of contemporary society and considering cultural and economic context, for the sustainable existence of built heritage.

Accordingly a literature survey was conducted on contemporary social contexts, their trends, pressures, influences and the resulting demands of the society, impacting built heritage.

In this scope (UNESCO 1972) states that; cultural heritage is threatened by changing social and economic conditions, in addition to traditional forces of decay.

David Lowenthal, in a paper entitles; “Stewarding the past in a perplexing present”, states that (Lowenthal 2000); “numbered by today‟s inexplicable miseries and tomorrow‟s incalculable risks, many discount past wisdom as irrelevant and dismiss heritage as an extravagant trill”. This is an idea also found in (Avrami, Mason and Torre 2000, p 14),where it is stated that; current generations are undergoing a novel set of social processes and problems; changes spurred by economic globalization, the spread of market ideology, demographic shifts, technological changes and identity politics, results in the rethinking of the relationship between the past, present and future.

The above suggests the attribution of the „dismissal‟ of heritage to; socio-economic and political influences.

(Doratli 2005), claims that; changing attitudes towards built heritage is influenced by; the globalization of economies, fuelled by the growth of trade, the development of information technology and the increasing mobility of capital and labour. She further claims that the two main contextual attributes determines the state of built heritage are: 1. The level of obsolescence (functional, physical, locational) 2. Development dynamics This is confirmed by Mona Serageldin in “Preserving the historic urban fabric in a context of fast-paced change” (Serageldin 2000), who states that; the two major forces influencing heritage are: 1. Development dynamics

14

2. “The perceptual and practical links between people and their architectural heritage” The above confirms the influence of socio-economic aspects on the condition of built heritage.

In the same paper, Serageldin, also emphasises the issue of the; prohibitive cost of maintain built heritage in accordance to the rigid conservation polices. Thus, further emphasising the economic aspect and introducing the influence of the legislative aspect on built heritage.

The legislative aspect is also mentioned in (Komoot 2012), where it is claimed that; “In many countries, including the European community, laws or legal systems related to heritage protection does not seem to work well in reality.” This is attributed to; the distance which appears between people and their heritage, when they are excluded from the law formulation process, and the loss of their sense of ownership of the heritage, these laws mostly trigger. As such, constant trials take place to defy these laws.

(Shehayeb 2010), emphasises the influence of daily needs of society on built heritage, stating that; “Everyday users of a place are interested in maximizing those values that are significant to their daily life, namely; social, economic, physiological and cultural values, using inappropriate means at hand, they minimize aesthetic and historical value of place.” This again confirms the influence of socio-economic trends and pressures on built heritage.

Brian Fagan, emphasises the influence of education on the perception of heritage, stating that; “without an awareness triggered by education, no society can provide a context for understanding, cherishing and sensing concrete cultural heritage.”

(Bluestone 2000) To better develop the proposed sub-hypotheses concerning the contemporary forces influencing heritage, literature concerning case studies addressing the same topic in non-western contexts, was surveyed, resulting in the following.

According to (Labbé 2010), the transformation that built heritage is experiencing in Hanoi, Vietnam is attributed to the following: 

Poor maintenance 15



Transformations carried out by users due to changes in needs



Demolition to make way for larger and more profitable buildings

This again, emphasises the socio-economic influences According to (Maharjan 2012) the degradation of the condition of built heritage in Kathmandu, Nepal, was attributed to: 

The increased urban pressure, due to increased population



Excessive urbanization; which was perceived as the result of; social, economic and political transformation.



The difficult economic conditions, which resulted in the perception of heritage as a luxury.

This confirms the socio-economic and political aspects, and introduces the influence of urban expansion pressure.

The pressure of urban expansion was also found to be influential in Penang and Melaka, in Malaysia, where increasing population growth and the resulting increased demand for new units, highly pressured the heritage fabric of the city. This is in addition to the impact of commercial and economic development opportunities (Mohamed, Ahmad and Badarulzaman 2000).

Having surveyed the existing literature on contemporary social context and its trends and pressures on built heritage; the following sub-hypothesis to my second hypothesis were formed: The following aspects of the changed social context have contributed to changed attitudes of the Alexandrian society towards their heritage: 1. Lack of appropriate urban expansion.

2. Absence of political will 3. Local and global socio-economic trends and pressures 4. Ineffective heritage educational 5. Legislative drawbacks and impediments

16

1.7 Proposed hypotheses Depending on the above survey of related literature and initial field survey of the major trends and pressures influencing Alexandriaâ€&#x;s built heritage, the following hypotheses were proposed as answers to my research question.

H1- The globally promoted notion of heritage is not native to our culture (in Egypt) and thus not rooted in the belief system of the society.

H2- Due to changes in contemporary social contexts, and the failure of built heritage in Alexandria to remain of relevance, attitudes of the society have changed towards it. The following aspects of the changed social context have contributed to changed attitudes of the Alexandrian society towards their heritage: -

H2A: Lack of appropriate urban expansion.

-

H2B: Absence of political will

-

H2C: Local and global socio-economic trends and pressures

-

H2D: Ineffective heritage educational

-

H2E: Legislative drawbacks and impediments

Having established the proposed hypotheses the following section will provide the methodology deployed in exploring their accuracy.

1.8 Methodology This research will adopt a mixture of descriptive and explanatory research approaches. The former with the aim of identifying and measuring the extent of the current situation of the built heritage in Alexandria, and the latter, with the aim of describing and comprehending the underlying causes of the current situation.

This will be carried out using the qualitative research method; it is characterized by its aim of understanding specific aspects of social life, and for its general outcome of words rather than numbers, being especially effective in obtaining culturally specific information about; the values, opinions, behaviours and social contexts of a particular society. Accordingly, this method was chosen due to its appropriateness to the nature of the research. The prospectively added benefits of the use of mixed research methods (adding quantitative methods to the used qualitative method) is acknowledged, but was dismissed due to the limited time scope of the research.

The qualitative tools used for each of the descriptive and explanatory sections of this thesis will now be addressed.

17

1.8.1 Descriptive Due to its descriptive nature, this section of the research compromises of data collection only. The tools used are: 1. Survey of related reports: provided by AlexMed (the Alexandria and Mediterranean research centre) Bibliotheca Alexandrina.

2. Observation: -

Personal observation

-

Observations of interested individuals

3. Online survey: -

Related Facebook groups: ex-Save Alex

-

Related online blogs: ex-Walls of Alexandria, curated by Dr Mohamed Adel El-Desouki, former member of the heritage committee in Alexandria.

1.8.2 Explanatory This section compromise of both data collection and data analysis, the tools used for each are addressed below; 1.8.2.1 Data collection 1. Survey of related literature 2. Observation: -

Personal observation

-

Observations of interested individuals

-

Online survey:

3. Online Survey: -

Related Facebook groups: ex-Save Alex

4. Online focus groups: -

Using short open-ended questions

-

Short interviews: with members of the general public, chosen

5. Interviews:

at random due to their observed familiarity with a certain issue/situation. Such as; shop owner of a shop situated in proximity to certain heritage building or resident of certain areas of interest.

18

-

In-depth interviews: conducted either with; interested professionals; such as architect interested in heritage, or with direct stakeholder, such as; investors.

1.8.2.2 Data Analysis 1. Critical analysis of related literature/content.

2. Comparative analysis of collected data with related literature.

3. Narrative analysis.

For further clarification of the data collection and analysis tools used for the examination of the validity of each proposed hypotheses, the following will present the tools used for each respectively; H1: Data collection: Survey of related literature Data analysis: Critical analysis of related literature H2: each sub-hypothesis will be addressed separately.

H2A: Data collection: observation, online focus groups, short interviews Data analysis: Narrative analysis and critical analysis H2B: Data collection: Survey of related literature and historical events Data analysis: Critical analysis of historical events, comparative analysis with related literature.

H2C: Data collection: Survey of related literature, observation, online focus groups, short interviews, in-depth interviews Data analysis: Narrative analysis, comparative analysis with related literature.

19

H2D: Data collection: Survey of related literature, observation, online focus groups, short interviews, in-depth interviews.

Data analysis: Narrative analysis, comparative analysis with related literature.

H2E: Data collection: Survey of related literature, observation, short interviews, in-depth interviews.

Data analysis: Narrative analysis, comparative analysis with related literature.

The survey of related literature collected for the purpose of examining H2B, H2C, H2D and H2E, will be presented prior to the discussion of each of these sub-hypotheses respectively.

1.9 Thesis Structure Having clearly defined the research problem, the argument it adopts, the proposed hypotheses and the research methods deployed in examining the, this introductory chapter will now end with the structure of this research.

Chapter Two: This chapter will address the first hypothesis (H1), adopting critical analysis of related literature, to discuss the origin and evolution of the heritage discipline in relation to its social context. It will be divided into two sub-chapters: -

Sub-Chapter One: Will address the evolution of the field in the European context.

-

Sub-Chapter Two: Will address the original approach adopted, in the Arab world, with a focus on Egypt, in dealing with built heritage and how this changed through waves of westernization. Clarifying how this transformation in adopted approach, influenced the social perception and appreciation of heritage in the Egyptian society.

Chapter Three: This chapter will address the history of Alexandria and its urban development. This has two aims: 1. Placing the research topic in perspective, by establishing the significance of the city, emphasizing the importance of protecting its remaining built heritage.

20

2. Emphasising the impact of different social, economic and political contexts on Alexandriaâ€&#x;s built environment throughout its history, thus supporting the second proposed hypothesis (H2) and its sub-hypotheses (H2A, H2B, H2C, H2D and H2E) Chapter Four: This chapter will encompass the descriptive section of this research, presenting the current situation of built heritage in Alexandria, using statistical indicators and examples, further confirming the existence and extent of the research problem.

Chapter Five: This Chapter will address the examination of the second hypothesis (H2) and its sub-hypotheses (H2A, H2B, H2C, H2D and H2E), using the previously addressed methodology.

Chapter Six: This chapter will include; a brief summary of the research and its results, the limitations of this research and finally some concluding remarks and brief recommendations.

21

Chapter Two The evolution of the heritage discipline and its social context This chapter will discuss the origin and evolution of the heritage discipline in relation to its social context. Its first sub-chapter will address the evolution of the field in the European context. While its second sub-chapter will address the original approach adopted, in the Arab world, with a focus on Egypt, in dealing with built heritage and how this changed through waves of westernization. Clarifying how these transformations in the adopted conservation approach influenced the social perception and appreciation of heritage in the Egyptian society.

2.1 Sub-Chapter One: The evolution of the heritage discipline in the European context..

2.1.1 Overview: the creation of the field The field of conservation, like any other modern discipline, is a reflection of its paradigm, therefore for us to study its evolution through time; we address the broader context of changing; social, cultural, political and economic events and ideas.

The existence of the practice of conserving old buildings stretches as far back as the beginning of the art of building. It runs back to ancient civilizations, where respect and admiration for the past, with its near mythical events and people, motivated the protection and preservation of the tangible remains of this past. The interest in this practice continued to fluctuate, according to the surrounding context, throughout history. Reaching a peak during the Italian renaissance (considered the seed for European renaissance 14th-16th century) when a more comprehensive understanding of the practice of conservation began to form, supported by the emerging notion of the time, which was presenting the ideas and sciences of “antiquity� as an ideal source to build contemporary culture on (Larkham 1996).

Despite this more comprehensive approach, conservation attempts remained few and isolated and therefore ineffective in the wider world view. It was only during the 18th century that the modern discipline of heritage conservation started to form. This great advancement is seen to be the result of broader changes which were taking place at the time in the western world, and which eventually led to the transition of 22

Europe and later the world to what we now call “The Modern World” (Rodwell 2007).

Accordingly to better study how the modern field of conservation was formed and how its principles came to be, we must analyse these changes and how they influenced the culture and ideas of people at the time.

2.1.2 The heritage discipline and the age of reason “The age of reason and enlightenment” or the “scientific revolution”, as this period came to be known, saw the emergence and rising of many new concepts and notions , many of which were actually the reason for its naming, such as; the promotion of scientific thought, scepticism and intellectual interchange. The promotion of these ideas led to the rise of the practice of establishing facts from primary sources and basing everything on consistent information sources, this led to the establishment of new scientific disciplines such as; art history and archaeology, both of which were great contributors to the modern field of heritage conservation. It was also these ideas which led to the formation of the concept of “authenticity” which was to become the “backbone” of the practice of conservation for many years to come (Rodwell 2007). This period also witnessed the „French revolution‟ with its many new ideas, including the idea of “nation state” which spread quickly throughout Europe. This idea contributed widely to the rise of interest in heritage conservation, as heritage was perceived to be a very effective way of uniting different groups in a nation, it also represents a strong symbol of identity and could ultimately be used by those in power to promote certain ideas which helps them as a „state‟ control their „nation‟ (Graham, Ashworth &Tunbridge, 2000).

2.1.3 The heritage discipline and the romantic era Towards the end of the era of reason and science – and as is normal following ages of extreme promotion of certain ideas- came the revolt against these ideas of scientific rationalism. This was is the form of the philosophy of “romanticism” which spread at the beginning of the 19th century and is well known for its emphasis on emotion. This philosophy was greeted with great enthusiasm from the society who had come to tire from impassive ideas of the “age of reason”. It is this era, which came to be known as the romantic era, with its promotion of aesthetics, sublimity, picturesque qualities and nostalgia, which is considered the true source/origin/cradle of the traditional practice of modern conservation. It was upon these ideas –age, beauty and authenticity- that the field was built and practised for many years (Nour 2012).

23

Explaining the evolution of ideas above, lays the ground for understanding, the two main conflicting conservation trends which emerged as the discipline was being formed. These two trends were “stylistic restoration” and “modern conservation” The conflict between these two trends was always about the “what” and “how” as the “why” already had an answer, resulting from the broader context in which they both existed, as explained earlier (Nour 2012). A spectrum of trends between these two, existed at around the same time, but these two trends were the most known and debated as they represented the extremes of this spectrum, which eventually came to be known as the discipline of heritage conservation.

2.1.4 The heritage discipline and modernism Towards the end of the 19th century the philosophy of romanticism faced a strong wave of criticism. Its emphasis on emotion and supremacy of nature began to be perceived as out-dated and inefficient in the face of the changing political, social and economic conditions. This criticism reached all disciplines and ideas, including; art, literature, religion, philosophy, daily life in general and of course, architecture and urban planning. Values such as beauty, age and sublimity, could no longer remain the ruling priority when dealing with the persistent industrialisation of societies and the rapid growth of cities. Interventions of a much higher pace were needed in order to keep up with these changes. This need became even more urgent when World War I broke out causing great destruction to large areas and sometimes whole cities.

This pressing need combined with the influence of this „new‟ industrial age, inspired many architects and planners to adopt a new trend which later became known as “modernism”. „Man as a machine‟ and „large top-down interventions‟ were the ruling ideas of this time. There was no longer time for the traditional self-organized cities, instead cities were planned to follow grids, rules and ratios, which were designed in accordance to "human dimensions"(Ross 1991). Houses were mass produced, their architecture simplified, with no ornamentations, instead there was large areas of glass, steel and concrete, creating a style which later came to be known as the „international style‟ due to its lack of character and individuality. Even social facilities such as; schools, parks and shops were planned according to these grids and ratios.

The result was theoretically ideal in physical terms, ticking the boxes of all the rules, but in reality, lacking any consideration for the individual experience despite following the rules of this so called "human dimensions" (Taylor 1998).

24

2.1.5 The heritage discipline and post-modernism Gradually these massive interventions and destruction of areas caused a rising dissatisfaction with the rigid rules and grids of “modernism”. This dissatisfaction encompassed both; social life and physical surroundings. People who lived in fast transforming cities felt the loss of “sense of place” they were no longer able to define themselves in relation to their physical surroundings. Those who had moved to modern cities began to compare them unfavourably to their old surroundings, becoming generally unsatisfied with this new trend (Fox 2007). Overall it could be said that the society seemed to be overcome with a sense of nostalgia to a time prior “modernism”.

Due to this increasing social need, a trend by the name of “post-modernism” started to rise. In response to the rapid loss of historic areas and local individuality, this trend was an attempt to maintain remaining local character. This was achieved on two levels; architectural and urban. On the architectural level this encompassed two practices, the first concerning new buildings where, in opposition to the “international style” social and physical contexts were emphasized and inspiration drawn from them, the second; concerning historic buildings, the practice of preserving and restoring them flourished. Meanwhile on the urban level, in attempt to achieve the mission of maintaining local flavour and spirit, the practice of heritage conservation, shifted its focus from single monumental building to broader surroundings, sometimes encompassing whole areas, including normal buildings, skylines and street patterns (Fox 2007). The above represents the second major shift in the modern practice of conservation.

Re-assessment of conservation practices and outcomes during post modernism, resulted in the realisation that the original intent of the trend, which can be summed up as “enhancing place recognition and maintaining local character” was actually not achieved on the long-run. After further analysis in was proposed that this was due to the following; 

Interventions remained top-down: heritage conservation during the time of “post-modernism” followed a linear process, explained below; 1. Recognition of objects/places of material culture as „heritage‟.

2. Listing of object/place to provide „protection‟ 3. Management of object/place designated to owner/organization.

4. Intervention may or may not take place.

25

This process usually meant that if intervention takes place it is much later and in isolation from the process of heritage recognition. This in turn means that the intervention can actually work against the values for which the place was recognised, altering it in a way which causes the hindering or loss of these values (Avrami et al.

2000). 

Interventions remained focused on the physical aspect; this meant that the intangible values were not prioritized, therefore contributing to the detachment of society from their surroundings, which gradually caused de-valorisation of these surroundings.



Interventions focused on tourism: the combined effect, of the emergence of the concept of „outstanding universal value‟ and the rapid growth of the tourism industry around the world, with its high revenue nature, meant that most interventions focused on transforming heritage sites/areas to tourist attractions. This lead to the commercialization of many heritage areas, which in turn caused loss in value.

2.1.6 The heritage discipline today The failure to achieve the original goals of „post-modernism‟ combined with the influence of emerging global concepts of democratization, recognizing diversity and public empowerment, pushed the field of heritage conservation, in the new direction of value-based management , this approach prioritizes “memories, ideas and other social motivations that drive the urge to physically preserve the built environment” (Mason 2004). This approach is further explained in the next chapter.

The emergence of value-based heritage management was closely followed by the global economic crisis, which fuelled the already growing concerns over contemporary issues such as; climate change, pollution and the exhaustion of the world‟s non-renewable resources (Knox 2011). These increasing concerns have driven the greater public to favour ideas which contribute to creating a sustainable future; accordingly the world has shifted to the new paradigm of sustainability (Fox 2007). This shift, of course, encompasses all disciplines, and the field of conservation is no exception, therefore, it has to shift to accommodate the new ideas, as it has with each of the previous prevailing philosophies and paradigms.

Since the emergence of this paradigm and after many studies, heritage professionals have found that there are many areas of intersection between the philosophy of 26

sustainability and the practice of heritage conservation, these intersections will be explained in details in the following chapter.

Here it is important to mention, that the shift of the discipline to accommodate sustainability has strongly supported the previous trend of value-based heritage management, as many experiences have proved that this trend is one of the most effective approaches on the long-run, which in turn, makes projects which follow this trend sustainable (Fox 2007).

2.1.7 Concluding Remarks This quick overview of social events, trends and ideas, and their influence on the evolution of conservation philosophy and practices, clarifies the development of the discipline, but we must keep in mind that all these social events, took place in the western world. This might be thought of as a first step towards understanding, why these ideas of conservation are highly accepted and respected by societies in the western world, while being totally disregarded and marginalised in other societies, especially those of developing countries.

27

2.2 Sub-Chapter Two: The evolution of the heritage discipline in the Arab world.

2.2.1 Philosophy of conservation in the Arab world Throughout history conservation of important buildings in the Arab world has taken place, in accordance to the philosophy of “Waqf”. This philosophy can be simply explained as a „lasting charity‟ and is thought to have been deeply rooted in the culture of the Arab world due to two reasons: 1- This philosophy runs far back, as the temples and priests in the area, have always been sponsored in accordance with this philosophy since ancient time (Nour 2012).

2- This philosophy gained further support by the society during Islamic times due to the fact that it was supported by parts of the Islamic holy texts – Quran and Sunnah- the most well-known of these texts being; the prophet Mohammed‟s saying, “when a human being dies, his work for god comes to an end except for three: a lasting charity, knowledge that benefits others and a good child who calls on God for his favour” (Nour 2012).

At a first glance the influence of this concept of ‟lasting charity‟ on the practice of conserving historic buildings, may not be clear, but with further understanding of how this system of „waqf‟ operated it becomes clear.

2.2.2 The system of ‘Waqf’ First we must understand that in order to achieve the goal of any „Waqf‟ to be long lasting; exceptional buildings were never built in isolation, they were always built as part of a whole system, which included revenue producing properties to ensure that this exceptional building and its functions would be sustained, accordingly any waqf was known to have two components: (Nour 2012) 1- Waqf: The actual building the owner wishes erect and support.

2- Mawqoof: Revenue producing property, needed to support „waqf‟ These two together, combine to form what we know as the „waqf‟, which can then operate as an independent system, operating according to a set of pre-defined rules, which include the social and economic aspects of the community it exists in. It was according to this system, that most of our most prized monuments dating back to the Islamic times -such as; mosques, sabils, caravansaries and even whole complexes – were built and conserved for many years (Nour 2012).

28

2.2.3 The role of ‘Waqf’ in conservation.

This system which embraced the social and economic needs of the community also had a great consideration for the conservation/maintenance of the properties it included. This is reflected in the waqfeya (the document which states the rules of each Waqf) where it is clearly stated that part of the revenues of the waqf were to be dedicated to this cause, it would also normally be stated that conserving these properties was a priority. These funds were not only used to maintain the properties themselves, a part was also dedicated to conserving the urban context including the infrastructure, this practice, which is considered one of the earliest context based approaches, was widely used as it was proved to be much more effective in maintaining the exceptional buildings on the long run. This may be attributed to this systems‟ goal of being long lasting, to achieve this goal, keeping the buildings in good shape would be necessary, so that they could continue carrying out their functions. The obligation to maintain the properties of the waqf was very strong due to the fact that the urge to make the charity „lasting‟ stemmed from a belief and not just an idea of social goodness (Nour 2012).

The maintenance/ conservation of architectural monuments under this system with its philosophy of „charity‟ which embraces the social and economic dimension of the community it exists in, meant that the „people‟ cherished theses monuments and encouraged their protection, mainly because of the services they offered them, irrespective of great architectural qualities, age or beauty.

Knowing this clarifies the difference between the difference between the concept of conservation in the western world and the Arab world. In the western world (as discussed previously) the society cherishes heritage building according to certain values, such as; age and aesthetics, this is the result of many events and ideas which they experienced and which has shaped the way they perceive their life and their surroundings. In contrast, people in the Arab world, who have gone through a totally different experience, came to cherish heritage buildings for the services it offered them, this in turn means, that once these services stop, the value of these heritage buildings to the society will diminish and therefore, heritage will be marginalized

29

2.2.4 The ‘Waqf’ system in Egypt 2.2.4.1 During the reign of Mohammed Ali This system remained prevailing in Egypt for centuries and was not doubted or altered until the beginning of the 19th century. It was around this time that Mohammed Ali came to power (Further information can be found in chapter three), and worked on gradually detaching himself from the Ottoman Empire and becoming the sole ruler of Egypt. It is thought that he came to view the system of Waqf; with its large number of frozen properties and land (up to 1/3 of agricultural land) as an obstacle to his ultimate control of Egypt (Kadry 2006). Accordingly he tried to overcome this obstacle, tracing legal shortcomings of different waqfs which would give him the right to confiscate the land and increasing the taxes when he could not.

He later established „Diwan Al Awaqaf‟ with the official job of documenting and monitoring the different waqfs, a step which can be considered as the very first towards centralizing the system of Waqf. This was followed by the issuing of a law prohibiting the establishment of new family waqfs (Nour 2012).

Even though both the law and the Diwan were stopped only 3 years after they were established they were considered to mark the beginning of the disintegration of the waqf system, which was later continued during both the colonial and post-revolution (1952) periods (Nour 2012).

2.2.4.2 During the colonial period The age of massive industrialization in the west was followed by an era of large colonial expansion, which included largely, the Arab world. Due to the fact that this colonial era was preceded by the age of „reason and enlightenment‟, these movements usually had a very prominent cultural aspect. This meant that a large number of western scholars came to the Arab world during this time, usually with a feeling of superiority. These scholars usually viewed and analysed the Arab culture and practices in reference to their own culture (Nour 2012). While this is totally normal and can be interpreted in light of the concept of social constructionism, it meant that they misinterpreted many aspects of the Arab culture as backwards or inadequate, this included; the traditional urban planning of Arab cities (which create its unique character) and the philosophy of the Waqf.

Due to the fact that the system of Waqf depended on freezing land and property, they perceived it as a system which froze the development of the city. They didn‟t fully comprehend that the existence of these „frozen‟ properties – which were mostly 30

common buildings with no special qualities- and their maintenance as part of the waqf system was actually part of regenerating the urban fabric of the city as a whole.

“The collective impact of the good management of many waqfs within the city, without any kind of centralized management, formal coordination or comprehensive interventions is what maintained the quality of life of the community.” (Nour 2012) Regarding the role of the system of Waqf in conservation; it was viewed and evaluated by the western scholars in reference to their own developing field – with its prioritization of age, aesthetics and authenticity over function – and therefore viewed these efforts with their focus on maintaining the function/ service as inadequate. Due to their feeling of superiority, they didn‟t fully appreciate that maintaining the function was in turn maintaining the social role of these monuments, which actually presented a major part of their value for the community and therefore contributed largely to sustaining their existence.

Gradually the western philosophy of conservation spread throughout Egypt in synchronization with the rise of the European influence, which started to become significant in the mid-nineteenth century, reaching a peak after Egypt became an official British protectorate in 1881.

In 1851 „Diwan Al-Awqaf‟ or „Waqf Assembly‟ was re-established, again with the main task of documenting and monitoring awqaf. This was followed by a string of major changes in the system of waqf. In 1863 khedive Ismail issued a law which stated that any abandoned waqf (in other words has no beneficiaries or responsible person; „nazir‟) was to be managed by the „waqf assembly‟. This meant that all the funds of these abandoned waqfs would be gathered and then redistributed by the „waqf assembly‟. This is considered to be the beginning of the gradual shift of the management of waqfs from being decentralized and carried out by independent people to becoming part of the centralized government, which- due to the fact that it wasn‟t fully aware of the context of each waqf in the way the Nazirs wereredistributed the funds in a way which didn‟t necessarily, reflect the social and economic needs of the different communities, therefore ruining a large part of the philosophy of waqf (Nour 2012). It is thought that this represented the first step towards the detachment of the people from their heritage buildings.

This shift towards the centralised management of Arab monuments was made even larger by the establishment of „The Comité‟ (Comité de Conservation des 31

Monuments de l‟Art Arabe)as part of the „waqf assembly‟ This committee was established as an „advice body‟, with the main task of; documenting all Arab heritage building and advising the „waqf assembly‟ on how to deal with them. It was later assigned the task of undertaking conservation projects of these buildings (Nour 2012). Under the management of „The Comité‟ these conservation projects came to be the main beneficiaries of the traditional revenues of the waqf system, this was conducted in a new centralised top-down manner.

Due to the fact that all of the members of this committee were either; westerns or western educated, it adopted the conservation practices of the west, focusing on the physical aspects (prioritising age, aesthetics and authenticity), neglecting the maintenance of the function and trying to transform what they saw as the chaotic urban fabric which surrounded the monuments into straightness and piazzas, removing in their way many of the „Mawqoof‟ buildings under the umbrella of removing „parasite structures‟ which ruined the monument and sometimes obstructed it from view (El-Habashi 2001).

As a result of these practices, the society began to feel isolated from these heritage buildings, which suddenly seemed to belong to the government, who was changing large parts of their surroundings just to conserve these buildings, this being on top of the fact that these conservation projects would normally decrease or totally end the function of the conserved building, which had always represented its main value to them. All this caused further detachment between the community and their heritage buildings.

2.2.4.3 The post-revolution (1952) era Due to the adoption of the socialist model during the reign of Nasser, many major changes took place in different aspects of governance. . The following are the main two changes which affected the waqf system and the field of conservation; 1. The huge waves of centralization.

This meant the merging of all institutions working in the field of heritage into one unit under the management of the ministry of education. This unit which encompassed all types of heritage (pharonic, greek, roman, coptic and Islamic) was named „the antiquities service‟ and was later transferred to he ministry of culture when t as established (Nour 2012).

32

2. As much as possible properties should be under government control.

All Waqf lands and properties were confiscated and placed under the management of the newly established „Ministry of Awqaf‟, later - as part of the larger socialist project of distributing lands amongst the people- the waqf lands were distributed and their cost paid back to „the ministry of awqaf‟ in instalments.

As a result of this, there was no longer any properties left for „the ministry of awqaf‟ to manage, it now only had money. Accordingly the government granted the minister of Awqaf the authority of spending his money on things other than those defined in the waqfeya. This money was now mostly spent n spreading Islam (Ghanem 1998).

This marked the end of the system of waqf, its philosophy of „lasting charity‟ and its independent decentralized practices. Despite trials in the 1970‟s to return the properties of waqf and spend their revenues according to their respective waqfeyas, the detachment between both the heritage buildings and the system of waqf and between the heritage buildings and their surrounding communities ad already gone too far for repair.

2.2.5 Other factors contributing to social perception of heritage (the second half of the 20th century).

1. Rural migration The years following the 1952 revolution saw huge waves of rural migration to the cities; this was mainly for the newly available educational and work opportunities. Historic parts of the city were commonly attractive for rural families and individuals for their cheap prices and maintained sense of tradition. This trend meant that the significant built environment of these areas were became surrounded by people who had no link with it, this in addition to the previously discussed loss of use value, normally resulted in the lack of appreciation of this built environment and thus its marginalization and degradation (Younes 2010).

2. Frozen rents During the reign of Gamal Abdel-Nasser and as part of his socialist regime, the already existing rent control laws were rived becoming further inclined to the tenants interests (this is further discussed in chapter five-legislative section). This law was to have a negative impact on the Egyptian housing 33

especially its heritage sector, this was mainly because; It did not account that these new tenants, with recently allocated apartments would be unable to maintain, care for and take pride in their new accommodation (Younes 2010).

As such the heritage housing stock under this law fell into disrepair.

3. The open-door policy This was an economic policy initiated by President Anwar El-Sadat in 1974 as part of a larger was of reform which he carried out at the time. It is commonly known as Al-Infitah and can be summarized as an attempt to liberate the Egyptian economy moving away from the previous socialist model (Hatoum 2013). This new open-door policy graualy led to the degradation of the economic standards of the educated class, this was mainly due to the rise in prices caused by this newly liberated economy in contrast to the constant income of the educated who were mostly working in the public sector at the time (Shechter 2001). This led to the rise of a new nouveau riche who were mostly unaware of the significance of heritage or its physical manifestations.

The above mentioned economic standard degradation of a wide sector of the Egyptian society led to waves of immigration to the newly prosperous Arab gulf countries. Upon their return to Egypt these immigrants would normally be of high economic standards but also greatly influenced by the culture of these Arab gulf countries (Shechter 2001). This mostly led to a lack of appreciation of the value of certain sectors of Egyptian heritage.

4. Concerned governmental bodies -

General organization for physical planning (GOPP) It was first established in 1973 as part of the ministry of housing; its main task at the time was developing and establishing national urban planning policy. After the issuance of the construction law 119 for the year 2008, the task of preparing strategic urban plans on national, regional and local levels, was added to its responsibilities (http://www.gopp.gov.eg). In recent strategic plans the GOPP has attempted to deploy built heritage as an asset, this is a step forward, but it is worthy to mention that their idea of doing so (as is particularly evident in Cairo vision 2050) is the „museificationâ€&#x; heritage areas and buildings (Nour 2012), neglecting its intangible aspect and social relevance, thus strengthening the social detachment from heritage.

-

National organization for urban harmony (NOUH) 34

It was first established in 2001 as part of the ministry of culture, its main tasks are; the preparation of value maps, the development of guidelines for listed buildings and areas and carrying out pilot projects (Nour 2012). Its main drawbacks can be summarized as follows;  It adopts a top down process issuing non-context based general laws  It carries out the listing process according to professional valuation, mostly neglecting social relevance or context.

As a result of the above it contributes to enlarging the gap between society and its built heritage.

2.2.6 Concluding Remarks Having explained the evolution of the philosophy of conservation in Egypt, addressed the changes which took place due to waves of westernization political contexts, in addition to discussing other recent factors contributing to the social conception of built heritage, the current social attitude towards heritage can be put in perspective allowing better comprehension of the situation.

2.3 Concluding Remarks Sub-chapter one presented the evolution of the concept of conservation in Europe and established the relation between this evolution its social context. This context related evolution is then compared in subchapter two, with the original philosophy of conservation in Egypt and the foreign interference, which led to the adoption of western notions of conservation, not rooted in the belief system of the society. Sub chapter two ends with an overview of recent factors which influenced social perception of built heritage. As such, it can be concluded that; the adoption of a philosophy foreign to the social belief system in addition to the influence of the discussed recent trends has contributed to altering public perception of built heritage de-valorising it conceptual value. Thus, the first hypothesis H1 can be deemed confirmed.

35

Chapter Three Historical Background of Alexandria This chapter will address the history of Alexandria and its urban development. This has two aims: 3. Placing the research topic in perspective, by establishing the significance of the city, emphasizing the importance of protecting its remaining built heritage.

4. Emphasising the impact of different social, economic and political contexts on Alexandria’s built environment throughout its history, thus supporting the second proposed hypothesis (H2) and its sub-hypotheses (H2A, H2B, H2C, H2D and H2E)

3.1 Overview Few cities have had a history as controversial as Alexandria, going through fluctuations of rise and falls, from a mere fishing village, to a great metropolis and then back again.

The following section will address this controversial history, with a special focus on the causes of these rises and falls, their relation to political will and finally it will highlight how these fluctuations effected Alexandria‟s architectural and urban development. This is in an attempt to: 1. Lay the ground for addressing and analysing the current situation of the city.

2. Monitor the rise and falls and comprehend their context in hope that studying this will help current and future planners realise the city‟s strong and weak points, to work with them when creating a development plan.

3. Give Insight to the fact that the city is currently in a phase of decline, and warning against the loss of some of the city‟s assets if the current situation continues.

4. Highlight the impact of political will on the city‟s advancement, in hope that this will encourage those responsible to consider directing some of its resources to developing Alexandria.

3.2 The foundation of Alexandria Already on a mission to conquer the world, and with a special attachment to Egypt running back to his childhood and upbringing, Alexander and his troops entered Egypt (Forster 2004), After gaining control of the capital of the time -Memphis- he 36

set out on a trip to the oasis of Siwa (Azaz 2004), to visit the temple of Amoun, of which he had been told about as a child (the legend goes that The Alexander was told by his mother that the Egyptian God Amoun was his true father), with the aim of being crowned as pharaoh of Egypt (son of god) in the traditional sense and therefore finalize his capture of Egypt (MIT 2005). On his way to Siwa, the Alexander passed by the Pharonic village of Rhakotis, a small fishing village at the time, it was bounded by the Mediterranean from the north, a vast lake from the south (Lake Mariout), and not far to its west lay the island of Pharos, it was also provided by a supply of fresh water from the Canopic branch of the Nile which passed nearby (Azaz, 2004), admiring its natural features and already on the search for a capital for his new kingdom, he “ordered his architect Dinocrates to build round the nucleus of Rhakotis a magnificent Greek city.” (Forster 2004).

The Alexander‟s choice of the site was one of both admiration and utility.(Forster.

E.M, 2004) He admired the location mainly for three reasons; the first being its natural features as mentioned above, the second its perfect climate while the third stemmed from the fact that the Pharos island was already well known and admired by him and all of Greece at the time, as it had been mentioned in “odyssey” a wellknown epic poem written by the greatly admired Greek poet „Homer‟ (MIT 2005).

This admiration is in addition to the utility of this location which can be summed up in the following points:  Its location on the northern coast of Egypt, thus facilitating the communication between it and his Macedonian capital. This in turn would contribute to prospering trade between them while also working for strengthening the Greek control of Egypt (Empereur 1998).  It was far enough from the delta to be saved from the yearly floods, yet its nearness to the canopic branch meant that it was connected to the rest of the nile system thus receiving a supply of fresh water, in addition to being convenient for trade with the rest of Egypt (Empereur 1998).  Its accessibility to the Mediterranean and its potential of developing two harbours (either side of the Pharos Island) meant that it could be a large trading port (Empereur 1998).  Its central location between the riches of the Africa and the Far East, and the consumer trade routes of the west, meant that it could be a global trading transit point. It had had special potential in becoming a trading centre 37

between the west and Africa, as ships could pass through it from the Mediterranean Sea, through to Lake Mariout, then to the Canopic branch of the Nile, which would connect then to the whole Nile system which ran far into Africa (Forster 2004).  The fact that the site was bounded by the Mediterranean Sea from the north and the large lake Mariout from the south, thus making it only accessible through two narrow strips of land, meant that it was highly protected by enemies coming from land (Falaki 1966).  The existence of the nearby Pharos Island, which the alexander saw had the potential of being utilised in protecting the enemies coming from the sea (Mahgoub et al 2000).

Following the Alexander‟s orders, Dinocrates, set out to create a „Greek capital‟ in Egypt, using the Hippodamian planning system as was typical of Greek cities at the time. This system constitutes of a grid of streets at right angles to each other (McKenzie 2007).

Figure 1- Showing Hippodamian street grid in Alexandria (Photo credits: academic research-architectural department-faculty of fine arts-Alexandria university 2012)

In Alexandria this grid was planned with two main axes; the first being the „canopic‟ street, which ran from east to west, while the second was known at the time as the „soma‟ street. These streets still exist in Alexandria‟s urban fabric today, the former being the current „Fouad Street‟ while the latter is „Nebi Danielle‟ street, and both are currently located in Alexandria‟s 19th-20th century downtown (Forster 2004).

38

It is said that, Alexander the great, left Alexandria before seeing a single building being erected in it (Forster2004), never the less Alexandria developed into a truly magnificent city during the reign of his successors, the polemics. Strabo, the Greek geographer, historian and philosopher, who visited Alexandria during the Ptolemaic era, reported that he was impressed (Empereur 1998). During excavations by Mahmoud El-Falaki, the famous Egyptian geographer in the 19th century, reported that the streets of the ancient city were “impressively parallel”, and that In the parts that are still paved, a swelling is noticed in the axe of the street for the discharge for the dirty water, it is also clearly noticed that the paving stones are identical everywhere, these stones are black and grey blocks with a 30-50 centimetres length and width, and apparently they were brought from Aswan or the nearby mountains, and it is the same kind of stones that covered aside from the third pyramid of Giza, these stones are solid and coherent. This reflects the great care with which this city was constructed (Falaki 1966).

Following its foundation Alexandria continued to be Egypt‟s capital for more than a thousand years, specifically until the Arab conquest of Egypt in 641 AD when the capital was moved to Fustat and Alexandria fell into one of its largest waves of deterioration, which continued for another thousand years, by the end of which Alexandria had become a mere fishing village (Empereur 1998). This was the condition in which Mohamed Ali found it, when he became governor of Egypt in 1805, and it was only through his interest and care, that the city of Alexandria saw the light once again.

Since its foundation and up until the appointment of Mohamed Ali as governor of Egypt, the city of Alexandria went through a series of rise and falls, which will now be explained briefly in chronological order.

3.3 Timeline of Events in Alexandria (331 BC- 1805 AD) 331 BC- Alexander the great orders the foundation of Alexandria.

323 BC- Alexander dies and Ptolemy I (or as he was officially named; Soter), one of the Alexander‟s four army generals, inherits Egypt and founds the polemic dynasty which rules Egypt for the next 300 years, with Alexandria as its capital (Forster 2004).

39

323-283 BC- Ptolemy I works to develop Alexandria (MIT 2005). 

He builds the Mousieon (institute for research) with its infamous library, which succeeds in attracting scholars from all around the world.



He orders the construction of a bridge linking the island of Pharos with mainland Alexandria, which he names the „Heptastadion‟ named due to the fact that it was 7 stadia long (add footnote: stadia-Greek measuring unit. This bridge is said to have had two advantages; „ it enlaged the city, and it broke the force of the currents and created a double harbour- great harbour to the east and the Eunostos („safe return‟) to the west.‟ (Forster 2004).



He starts the foundation of Alexandria‟s famous light house 283-246 BC- Ptolemy II comes to power; he continuous in his father’s steps

and the city continues to develop (MIT 2005). 

Light house is completed in his reign (Forster 2004).



Building of the serapium and other large temples



Library built in the Serapium temple, as an extension of the Musieon (Forster 2004).

246-221 BC- Ptolemy III comes to power, Alexandria’s development reaches

a new peak.(MIT 2005). 

A law is issued, which states that; any foreign book entering the country was to be taken to the library of Alexandria and the owner given a copy.



The Mousion‟s library grows rapidly, as does the city, which comes to be one of the world‟s greatest cosmopolitan cities during this time 221-80 BC- Alexandria and the whole of Egypt enters a stage of decline, until

the reign of Ptolemy XI who is said to have offered Egypt to the Romans (MIT 2005) 31 BC- Cleopatra VII (the last of the Ptolemaic rulers) defeated by the roman general Octavian, marking the beginning of the roman era in Egypt (Forster 2004).

31BC- 180 AD- Egypt becomes a mere state in the roman empire, controlled remotely from Rome by rulers who were more interested in the wealth it had to offer than the well-being of the country or its citizens, thus; Alexandria, as its capital, was destined to decline (MIT 2005).

40



The roman general Octavian, who conquered Egypt, highly disliked Alexandria and therefore founds a new town near the modern district of Ramleh (Forster 2004).



Many of the library‟s books were taken away to Rome and the literary rate in Alexandria declined reaching a new low. Despite this Alexandria remained a fairly prosperous cosmopolitan city on the economic front for a large part of the roman era, this was due to its strategic global location and unique harbours during the existence of the Pax Romana (roman peace) which lasted from 27BC to 180 AD and which resulted in the flourishing of commercial and industrial activity globally.

45 AD- The first accession of Christianity in Egypt by St. Marc (Forster 2004). A Church was soon established under the authority of a bishop elected by the community (Empereur 1998).

180 AD- Pax Romana ends, as a result; Alexandria loses a large amount of commercial activity resulting in a new wave of decline (MIT 2005).

272-642 AD- This is an age of political concern for Alexandria and Egypt as a whole and Alexandria loses its place as both commercial and literary centre of the world, due to the shift of concern from development to political control issues (MIT 2005).

272 AD- Firmus (a wealthy merchant from Ethiopia) takes advantage of the fact that the romans only control Egypt remotely and seizes Egypt. This results in a roman war against Egypt, during which a great number of Alexandria‟s monuments are damaged, this includes the library and mousieon. All this damage and further the animosity of the roman rulers against Egypt, results in further decline (MIT 2005).

312 AD- Roman emperor Constantine declares Christianity the official religion of the empire (Forster 2004).

391 AD- Conflicts between Christians and pagans reach a peak in Alexandria, riots break out and many monuments are destroyed. Many more of Alexandria‟s monuments are demolished after the Roman governor orders all pagan monuments to be destroyed.

-

Alexandria gradually becomes intellectual centre of the Christian world.

41

395 AD- Egypt becomes a Byzantine Empire. Remote control continues, thus not much interest in development, therefore Alexandria declines (MIT 2005).

616 AD- Alexandria becomes part of the Persian Empire (MIT 2005).

626 AD- Romans regain control of Egypt (MIT 2005).

642 AD- General Amr Ibn El- As seizes Egypt without resistance and the Arab era officially begins. Despite being dazzled by the city the Arabs decided to transfer the capital to their newly founded city of Fustat (Forster 2004).

645 AD- A few years after the peaceful capturing of Egypt, the city of Alexandria revolted against the Arab rule, Amr Ibn El-As reacted by recapturing by force, during the struggle many of the remaining ancient monuments were damaged, this included total destruction of the ancient library. Even after regaining control of Alexandria the Arabs retained political discomfort towards Alexandria, which led to neglecting Alexandria and therefore its decline (Abdel-hakeem 1958). This decline was compounded by two facts, the first being; the drying up of the canopic Nile branch, therefore cutting Alexandria from the Nile system and stopping its supply of fresh water and the second was the immigration of many foreign both those working in commercial activities and intellectuals, this immigration was mainly due to their fear of the changes this new reign would bring about (Forster 2004) 868- 919 AD- The Tulunid era in Egypt. During this era Egypt was an independent state, this allowed for some developments; (Forster 2004) 

New city walls built in Alexandria, encompassing about half of the area of the ancient Greek city (Empereur 1998).



Renovation of coast line and ancient light house.

919- 1171 AD- The Fatimid era in Egypt. During this time Egypt

becomes part of an empire but it is chosen as the seat of the empire (MIT 2005).  956 AD- Large earthquake destroys part of the infamous light house; the pharos.  Alexandria witnessed a wave of economical and literary improvement, due to hosting large numbers of scientists and poets, mostly coming from other parts of the Fatimid Empire.  Nearly no alterations to the urban fabric of Alexandria during this time.

42

1171- 1250 AD- The Ayubid era in Egypt. Egypt remains seat of empire (MIT 2005). 

Stable rate of development in Alexandria



Fortified the walls of Alexandria and transformed the city into naval base (Empereur1998).



Roman columns thrown into the sea, to provide protection from enemy ships.



The ayubid caliphs supported investment in Alexandria, and as a result the city expanded slightly and new arab style settlement) formed to the west and south of the city.

1250- 1517 AD- The Mamluk era in Egypt. Egypt is once again an independent

state (MIT 2005). 

Alexandria still in a phase of improvement, becomes „the most important commercial port in the Islamic world‟ once again this is because of its intermediate location between the wealth of the east and the European consumer market and the effort those responsible put into making use of this asset.



1323 AD- large earthquake destroys the Pharos beyond repair.



In an effort to further reinforce Alexandria‟s position as naval base, Mamluk sultan Qaitbey builds Qaitbey fortress in the strategic location of the old pharos (this fortress is still in existence)



Wave of decline (Azaz 2004).



1496 AD- trade had continued to flourish in Alexandria up until this time when the discovery of a new sailing route around Africa to the Far East, largely detracts from Alexandria‟s share in world trade. The city fall into economic depression, and therefore a phase of decline, this continues until its revival by Mohamed Ali.



Total blockage of canal connecting Alexandria to the Nile (Empereur 1998).



The spread of epidemics compounds the city‟s deterioration and the population size reaches a new low.

1517- 1798 AD- Ottoman era in Egypt. Egypt becomes, once again a

remotely controlled state in a vast empire, wave of decline due to interest in wealth and not development. (MIT, 2005) 43



Alexandria decline s further, reaching an all-time low and becoming a small fishing village with a population of around 4000. All of which live outside the city walls on the newly silted over land which developed around the ancient Heptastadion, in typical small ottoman settlements, while both the Arab and Greek cities lie in ruins inside the deteriorating walls (Forster 2004).

1798-1801 AD- French campaign in Egypt. The campaign claims to be a

cultural one, and works in planning country’s development while studying the historical and current situation which was later published in a book under the name of ‘Description de l'Égypte’ (Forster2004), 1798 AD

The French troops land in Alexandria under the leadership of general Napoleon.



In alliance with the ottoman empire, the british marine fleet under the leadership of Sir Nelson, attacks the French fleet in Bay Abou-Keir (eastern Alexandria) As a result the French fleet was destructed resulting in ; the loss of the French command of the sea in addition to their loss of contact with their homeland. They now only had land control. (Forster 2004),

1799 AD- In an attempt to regain land control, the British and Ottoman troops land in Abou-Keir, This time napoleon with his strong control of the land ins successful in driving them away (Forster 2004), 1801 AD

The British land once more in Abou-Keir this time under the leadership of Sir Ralph Abercrombie, with the aim of forcing the French to leave Egypt. Again the British fail in this mission due to the fact that Alexandria‟s land- water distribution worked in favour of the French with their land control (Forster 2004).

44

Figure 2- Alexandria during the British/French battles, 1801. Showing Lake Mariout and Lake Abou-Keir (Photo source: http://www.alexanderstomb.com)



Sir Hutchinson takes over the control of the British troops and after being advised by specialists decides to change Alexandria‟s land- water distribution to work in his favour. He does this by destroying the dykes which separated the salty lake of Abou-Keir and the dried up Lake Mariout, thus flooding lake Mariout and gaining marine control over the area. Only then was he able to prevail, succeding in defeating the French, subsequently forcing them to leave Egypt (Forster 2004).

1801-1805AD- A near anarchical system prevails in Egypt while a struggle

for power takes place between the Albanians (of which Mohamed Ali was one), the ottomans and the Mamluks. No development happens during this time (MIT 2005).

At the end of this chronological presentation of Alexandria‟s development and decay, it is important to mention that by the end of this period; „life flowed back into her (Alexandria), just as the waters, when Hutchison cut the dyke, flowed back into lake Mariout‟, This revival was supported by Mohamed Ali‟s efforts in reinstating Alexandria as a cosmopolitan city when he finally came to reign in 1805. His efforts and the motives behind them will be addressed in detail in the following section.

45

3.4 The Mohamed Ali Dynasty: Highlighting its impact on the development of Alexandria. ‘…the power of Mohamed Ali grew, and with it the importance of Alexandria, his virtual capital.‟ E.M Forster- Alexandria: a history and a guide.

To understand this suggested directly proportional relation between the power of Mohamed Ali and the prospering of Alexandria, we must address the reasons behind his interest in the city and what it had to offer him. To better comprehend this we must first address Mohamed Ali‟s background.

Mohammed Ali was born in the late 1760‟s to humble Ottoman merchant in Macedonia (which was part of the Ottoman Empire at the time), he himself worked as a merchant for a while before deciding to join the ottoman army. He first arrived in Egypt in 1801, as a common solider fighting -against the French- in the ottoman army under the leadership of Sir Abercrombie. Following the British victory, struggle for power issued, during which Mohamed Ali remained in Egypt and rapidly rose to leadership due to his political and military skill. As mentioned above this struggle for power was between three forces; the Mamluks, the Ottomans and the Albanians (who were part of the ottoman army). Mohamed Ali was part of the Albanian force, which succeeded in overcoming the other two forces. Despite this Egypt remained a part of the Ottoman Empire, which meant that there was a continuous struggle for power between the Ottomans (who wanted Egypt to remain under their control) and Mohamed Ali (who wanted to establish an independent empire with Egypt as its centre. This background explains Mohamed Ali‟s persistence in developing Egypt into a strong and independent state. Thus, full of admiration for the Europeans –with whom he had come into contact during his service in the army- Mohamed Ali set out to create a strong modern state, to be respected by the whole world. The following sections will address his efforts to achieve this mission and how these efforts impacted Alexandria (Mansel 2012).

To work on developing a strong respected state, Mohamed Ali realised that he would first need to guarantee its protection. Being aware of the fact that nearly all attacks on Egypt in the near past, came from the Mediterranean, he was conscious of the need for a strong maritime capital on the Mediterranean coast. He has the choice of founding a new city or developing Rosetta or Damietta (Egypt‟s main ports at the time), his choice was to revive the ancient city of Alexandria (Forster 2004).

46

This choice stemmed from the fact that Alexandria was very luring to him on many fronts, as is explained below: (Forster 2004) 

The city was already known and admired globally, as the ancient cosmopolitan city of knowledge, developing it would mean reviving this symbol which would contribute to the modern strong image he yearned for and would work in favour of attracting foreign investments.



Its location on the Mediterranean coast, meant it could be efficiently employed in defending Egypt from maritime attacks coming from Europe



The existence of its two harbours meant it could be both an economical and naval asset.



Choosing a second capital on the Mediterranean coast was a strong message to the whole world that his developing state „was no mere oriental monarchy, but a modern power with its face to the sea‟ E.M Forster- Alexandria: a history and a guide. In other words part of the modern world, thus a force to be reckoned with.

Accordingly Mohamed Ali set out to reinstate Alexandria to its past glory. The following section will outline his efforts, highlighting their impact on the architectural and urban fabric of Alexandria.

By 1817 – only 12 years after Mohamed Ali officially began to rule Egypt- Alexandria is said to have been; „an active scene of ship building, vessels loading and taking their cargos, with heaps of grain and bales of goods piled up on its shore‟ these were the words of an English traveller named Robert Richardson, in comment on his visit of Alexandria at the time (Mansel 2012).

Starting from the year 1811, Mohamed Ali started spending more and more time in Alexandria, until in the year 1822, the consul-generals moved their offices from Cairo to Alexandria, due to the fact that he was now spending nearly all his time there. This fact compounded by Alexandria‟s cool Mediterranean climate (in contrast to Cairo‟s stifling inland climate) and its advantage in being better connected to economic activity, Alexandria became Egypt‟s unofficial capital (Mansel 2012).

Alexandria‟s at the start of Mohammed Ali‟s reign is known to have been centred in the „Turkish town‟; its first phase of urban expansion (starting 1805) was mainly in two directions. The first was to the north, occupying the rest of the Pharos Island and 47

creating the quarters of Ras-El-Teen and Anfoushy, this was supported by the development of the western harbour and the foundation of Ras-El-Teen royal palace.

While the second direction was to the south east of the ottoman nucleus, to great the Mansheya quarter, this was triggered by the development of what came to be known as the „Place des Consuls‟, Mohammed Ali developed this square as early as 1813, and distributed the lands surrounding it amongst different foreign communities, this was in an attempt to encourage them to settle in the city (Abdel-Hakeem 1958).This square was professionally planned in the early 1830‟s by Italian engineer „Francesco Mancini‟, who gave it its characteristic elongated rectangular form which has survived all the subsequent re-designs, he surrounded it with Italian oriented rectangular block buildings which averaged two storeys in height and were mostly of his design (Awad.2009).

Even at these early times, suburbs began to develop, this was a direct effect of the foundation of the Mahmoudeya canal, and its consequent use in trade, this promoted the development of settlements along its northern banks, which led to the formation of Karmous, El- Hadara and Antoniadis (Azaz 2004).

To emphasis the significance of Alexandria and crown it as Egypt‟s second capital, Mohamed Ali commissioned several foreign architects to build him a royal residence on the tip of the western tip of the Pharos peninsula, which he called Ras el teen (cape of fig) palace. Mohamed Ali‟s choice of location here was again significant; His palace would now dominate the western Pharos, as the infamous Ptolemaic royal palace had dominated the east in ancient times, further reinstating Alexandria‟s position as a global power and therefore also his own (Forster, 2004).

Realising the vitality of linking Alexandria to the Nile system (as it used to be in the ancient time) and its necessity for the successful revival of the city; Mohamed Ali commissioned the French engineer „Pascal Coste‟ in 1818 to dig a canal connecting Alexandria to the western branch of the Nile, It was completed in 1821. This canal which still exists to this day, was named „Mahmoudia‟ after the ruling ottoman sultan at the time (Mahmoud) and is considered to be one of the first physical changes Mohammed Ali made to Alexandria‟s fabric (Forster 2004).

Under the orders of Mohamed Ali, a naval school was established in the western harbour in 1826, (later -1831- he added an arsenal). This strengthened the city‟s position as a naval capital. By 1829 the importance of Alexandria‟s western harbour 48

was compounded by its development into a large commercial port, under the supervision of French engineers „Cerisy‟ and ‟Mougel‟, this development in addition to the fact that Alexandria was once more connected to the Nile system meant, that Alexandria was reinstated as Egypt‟s main commercial centre, and both Damietta and Rosetta are known to have lost their places at around this time. Alexandria was now a naval and commercial centre (Empereur 1998).

Alexandria‟s global commercial position was further strengthened following the introduction of long crop cotton in Egypt, which was highly successful and resulted in significant rise in both quality and quantity of Egyptian cotton by the 1820‟s,as a result Alexandria became the world main cotton trading port and was now officially prosperous once again. As its economy grew, so did its population, with many foreign and Egyptian immigrants, attracted by this booming trade (Mansel 2012).

By the 1840‟s Alexandria is said to have been a flourishing rapidly developing city, with a; prosperous economy, rising population and expanding suburbs. Upon his visit to Alexandria in 1846, Bayle St. John and English travel writer and biographer, commented that he found „a perfect rage for building in Alexandria‟ he reported that whole new quarters had appeared „as if by magic‟ (Mansel 2012).

In 1834 and as a result of this high development rate, several foreign consuls created an ornato (board of works) which was to be responsible for supervising the city‟s rapid development, thus making Alexandria the first self-governed city in the Middle East. By 1869, merchants paid a voluntary tax, as a contribution to the city‟s development, and finally in 1890 the Municipal council was officially founded, most of its members were of the foreigners residing in Alexandria, half of them were appointed by the government (these were mostly the technical professionals) while the other half were elected by the Alexandrians. The Municipality collected obligatory taxes from all the residents and was responsible for; providing services for the poorer quarters and the developing suburbs, carrying out public projects and supervising the city‟s development in general. Many of the projects it carried out are still prominent to this day, such as; the construction of the Corniche (the sea promenade), the municipal gardens (modern day Shalalat garden), opening Nouzha and Antoniadis gardens to the public and finally financing the construction of the Greco roman museum. It is also worthy to mention that in 1907, the Municipality of

49

Alexandria issued a law to control the heights and building materials of developing buildings in the city (Haag 2008).

Even after Mohamed Ali‟s death in 1849, Alexandria continued to play a leading role, He had succeeded in reviving the city and it was well on its way to a prosperous future as a virtual capital of Egypt. In 1854, during the reign of Mohamed Sa‟id pasha, the convention for the creation of the Suez Canal was signed in Alexandria, while in 1873 during the reign of khedive Ismail, the first statue in the Islamic world was unveiled in Alexandria (this was the statue of Mohamed Ali, which was placed in the „Place des Consuls’, which was renamed to bear his name) (Mansel 2012).

As the city flourished, it expanded and developed growing suburbs, and one of the main needed services was smooth transportation. This fact led to the development of the tram in 1860, for a few years it was pulled by horses until it became a steam train in 1863 and was later replaced by the modern electric tram -which still exists to this day- in 1904, thus facilitating the development of the suburbs. The suburb of the ramleh suburb in particular was further aided by the development of the corniche (sea promenade) designed by Italian architect Peitro Avoscane along the curve of the ancient eastern harbour, its construction started in 1906, ending in 1934, by which time it linked the down town with the suburb of Ramleh efficiently (Azaz 2004 & Awad 2009).

The city‟s urban expansion during this second wave of development (1855-1905) was mainly in three directions supported by the various developmental projects taking place in Alexandria. To the south; the quarter of Karmous developed further and a new residential quarter was developed around the arab burial area of Kom ElShokafa, this was mainly due to the establishment of the Alexandria-Cairo train station in this area in 1854. To the west; the city expanded further forming the quarter of Al-Qabbary, this quarter was developed mainly due to the the establishment of some industrial projects such as; warehouses, petroleum depots, cotton storehouse, and some small factories , in the area. To the east; the flourishing economy and increasing population meant that the urban development extended as far as the quarter of Azarita, additionally, the suburb of Ramleh began to develop supported by the development of the steam train linking it to the downtown (AbdelHakim 1958).

50

Figure 3- Showing Alexandria’s urban expansion 1805-1905 (Abdel-Hakeem 1958)

In July 1882, after a revolt broke out in Alexandria, led by the Egyptian general „Ahmed Orabi‟ the British bombarded the city; they eventually succeeded in regaining control of the city (Forster 2004). Following this event Egypt became officially under British control. Despite the great damage this bombardment caused in Alexandria and the new circumstances of the British occupation, the city continued to flourish with an even higher rate. More foreigners flowed into the city encouraged by the new advantages the British offered, which called for further extension of the urban fabric, with new buildings designed by renowned architects being erected in every part of Alexandria. This is in addition to the redevelopment of the destructed areas, the most prominent of which was the „place des consuls‟ which was in completely burnt down -with the exception of Mohamed Ali‟s statue, St. Mark‟s church and The Tossizza Palace (residency of Michael Tossizza, first Greek consul in Alexandria and one of the first settlers in the city)- after the bombardment and was reconstructed but with a change in function, it was now more of a commercial centre, rather than its former function of serving the port. This included the restoration and reuse of The Tossizza Palace as a stock exchange, which came to be the largest 51

outside Europe, this is in addition to establishing new 19th century European gallery style buildings surrounding it, such as the „mixed tribunals‟ built in 1886 by Alfonso Manescalco, „Okalle Moneferato‟ 1885-87 by Lugi paiattoli and the „Okalle Menase‟ (1883-85) by Lasciac, the last two being the equivalent of modern shopping centres.

Most of the buildings built in this square during this time survive to this day, but are rapidly decaying. The square was further developed as a commercial and recreational centre after the construction of the Corniche, the square now opened up to the sea, with fine gardens stretching between them, instead of its former dead ending (Awad 2009).

Figure 4- Left: plan of the 'place des consuls' before the 1882 bombardment, (photo source: Awad 2009).

Right: Photo of the same square after its reconstruction following the 1882 bombardments, showing it being opened up to the new cornice, (photo source: Haag. M, 2008)

Alexandria development rate continued to rise especially during the two world wars and the small interval between them. Investments increased as did the population size, this was mainly due to the fact that Alexandria by this time had nearly all the advantages of a European city but was at the same time away from the trauma of the wars, making it a safe haven for both people and money.

Urban expansion at this time was mainly driven by the increase in population size, during this period (1905-1955) which can be considered the end of Alexandria‟s modern cosmopolitan era, the city extended in three directions, resulting in an urban fabric nearly identical to the one which exists to this day. Firstly, to the south; the „Karmous‟ quarter expanded further, the quarter of „Moharam Bek‟ was developed, and a new settlement was developed on the southern bank of the „Mahmoudeyah canal for the first time, this area was called „gheet el enab‟ and compromised mainly of low standard housing due to its remote location beyond the canal. This is in addition to the foundation of „Smouha‟ district on the area that used to be covered by 52

„El-Hadara‟ lake. Secondly, the city expanded further west, and the districts of „ElWardyan‟, „El-Mex‟ and „El-Dekhyla‟ were developed as industrial areas with surrounding residential settlments, then as now these districts were unattractive as residential neighbourhoods due to the difficulty in commuting to and from them. It was also during this time that „El-Agamy‟ was developed as a summer resort, but it gradually failed due to infrastructural problems. Thirdly; to the east, the city‟s expansion in this direction was a process parallel to the construction of the cornice, with new areas appearing as the corresponding part of the cornice was completed, until it reached the suburb of „El-Ramleh‟ which was now officially part of the city.

Later the city extended further in this direction, and the districts of „Sidi Beshr‟, „ElMandara‟ and „El- Montaza‟ were developed, triggered by the foundation of a new royal palace in „Montaza‟ and supported by the extension of the Corniche (Azaz 2004).

Figure 5- Showing urban development of the city of Alexandria, 1905-1955. (Photo source: Alexandria comprehensive plan till 2005- 1984 )

53

3.5 The post revolution era: Alexandria’s urban expansion 3.5.1 The period between 1952-mid-1990’s Following the 1952 revolution Alexandria continued to expand and grow pressured by the unprecedented rise in population number (Table1). Up until the 1990‟s the following were the main developments and expansions in the city‟s urban fabric.

Table 1- Showing population number in Alexandria 1897-1996 (Azaz 2004)

To the east; El-Mamuora compound was developed beyond El-Montaza, triggering further development around it, which extended to cohere with Abou-Keir. It is worthy to note that Abou-Keir had been part of Al-Buhayra governorate up until 1955 when a governmental decision transferred its control to the governorate of Alexandria in anticipation of this expansion. To the south of this area industrial areas developed in El-Seyof and El-Ras El-Soda, thus triggering residential development around them.

Due to the context of their foundation these areas are mainly of lower standards with a considerable number of informal structures many of which have taken over cultivated lands, this is especially true in El-Ras El-Soda (Azaz 2004) Another major development during this time was that of the previously mentioned Smouha district, which developed into an upper middle and upper class residential area, with its own exclusive membership club. To the south of this area settelments around El-Mahmoudia canal expanded but their social and living standards declined with many of its former villas demolished. The area transformed gradually from an upper-middle class villas area into an informal area (Azaz 2004). Further south of the Mahmoudia canal sporadic informal settlements started to appear around the Nouzha/Matar Lake.

Development of industrial sites and the Dekhila port in the western direction triggered major development and expansion in this direction. El-Agamy, which was originally planned as a summer resort developed into a residential area acting as a 54

node of development in the area. new summer resorts –in the form of gated compounds- beyond El-Agamy along the Alexandria-Matrouh desert road, forming what came to be known as „The North Coast‟, these new resorts succeeded in attracting the upper-middle and upper class from both Alexandria and Cairo, thus triggering further development and investment in the area. This is in addition to the development of a new suburb by the government under the name of „New Borg ElArab Town‟, it was planned as a new industrial and residential hub, but has only succeeded on the industrial front (reasons for its failure as a residential area are discussed in chapter five). To the south of this area, two new suburbs developed around Lake Mariout namely; King Mariout and Al-Amrya. The former was developed as a Villas area for the upper-middle and upper class, while the latter is located near the previously mention El-Dekhila and was developed for similar puposes. The highrate of development in this area triggered the drying up of parts of Lake Mariout to accommodate the market demand (Azaz 2004).

Figure 6- Showing urban development in Alexandria 1993 (Photo source: Azaz 2004)

55

3.5.2 The period between mid-1990’s-current time (2013) Despite the rise of the population increase rate in Alexandria since the mid-1990‟s no new residential areas have been initiated by the government since that time up until the current time (2013). Urban development of the city has compromised of; further expansion and densification of the areas developed in the previously addressed period (1952-1990‟s), informal expansion over cultivated lands and finally the replacement of existing small buildings (whether considered heritage or not) by new high-rise ones either legally or illegally. The latter is an issue central to the problem addressed by this research and is further discussed in chapters four and five). The following summarizes the urban development of Alexandria during the period between the mid-1990‟s and the current time (2013).

Period 1986-1996

Population annual growth rate 1.2

1996-2006

2.1

Table 2- Showing population growth rate 1978-2006 (Denis 2013)

Further expansion of „Mamoura‟ and Abou-keir, they developed into middle and lower class neighbourhoods, with a considerable number of informal structures and illegal added floors. The above is also true for „El-Seyouf‟ and „El-Ras El-Soda‟ neighbourhoods, with an increase of informal structures occupying cultivated lands. „Smouha‟ neighbourhood has also seen major development and expansion, continuing to develop as an attractive upper-middle class neighbourhood, thus triggering a high rate of construction activity and densification of the area. To the south of this area there has been a trend to develop the area around El-Mahmoudia canal, transforming it from a lower class informal area into a middle and uppermiddle class area, deploying it as an extension to the prosperous „Smouha‟ neighbourhood. This started by the development of a commercial mall to the south of this area which acted as a trigger for residential development around it, this effect was compounded by the recent development of a private university in the same zone (Pharos university). To the south of El-Mahmoudia canal, the development of the informal constructions around Nouzha/Matar Lake accelerated, with whole areas and neighbourhoods being developed, the high rate of this expansion is evident even when comparing only the two recent maps of 2005 and 2013 (figure 7), this is in addition to the sporadic development on cultivated land south of this area which is evident in the 2005 map and its densification evident in the 2013 map. To the west of this area, development along the outset of the Alexandria-Cairo desert road has begun; this is evident when comparing the 2005 map with the 2013 one. This expansion was initiated by the construction of a commercial mall with well-known franchise brands, whose success attracted the initiation of other commercial activity.

Up until now this area is mainly a commercial one, with only once gated residential compound which has not yet proved to be a success.

56

Major expansion has also taken place in the western direction, with a high rate of densification evident in both the 2005 and 2013 maps. This densification includes both; the area around Lake Mariout („El-Amrya‟ and „King Mariout‟) and the area further west along the Alexandria-Matrouh desert road.

Figure 7- Showing Built-up in Alexandria 2005 (Source: Researcher).

Figure 8- showing Built-up in Alexandria 2005 (Source: Researcher)

57

3.5 Concluding Remarks By addressing the history of Alexandria, and its evolution as a city, the research problem has now been placed in perspective, enabling better comprehension of the importance of its built heritage and thus the significance of the current situation.

Referring to the various rises and falls of Alexandria and establishing links between the prosperity of its built environment and the social context, can be considered to support the second hypothesis H2.

58

Chapter Four Current Situation This chapter will encompass the descriptive section of the research, presenting the current situation of built heritage in Alexandria, using statistical indicators and examples.

4.1 Overview Amongst Egyptian cities, Alexandria is signalled out for being endowed with a very unique built heritage.

The uniqueness of its heritage stems from the fact that it is the result of the coexistence and integration of the different cultures that made Alexandria their home, during its cosmopolitan era (19th- mid 20th century). The different communities ((these communities include the Egyptians as nearly none were native Alexandrians) which made up the Alexandrian society during this time, were deeply attached to their city (in way similar to nations of a city state are today) and worked together, investing all their integrated efforts into developing their city, into a modern and beautiful place. It was these efforts which made Alexandria the first self-governed city in the middle east, as a result Alexandria was one of the best cities in the area in terms of; infrastructure, transportation, hygiene, and urban development. Some of the greatest engineers and architects contributed to the architectural and urban planning of the city. The only remains of this far away nostalgic time are the built heritage of Alexandria, with its many different styles, and we are currently losing this fast, faster than ever before.

For many years now and due to many pressures (to be discussed in the next section) the city of Alexandria has been constantly losing its built heritage. The rate of this loss has become much more dramatic, following the revolution of the 25th of January, reaching a point where it has become a pressing concern and a real threat, to the image of the city. If the current situation is to continue, Alexandriaâ€&#x;s built heritage, and consequently its unique character will be lost forever. The huge wave of demolishment has included both heritage and non-heritage building stock and areas, but those which are part of the cityâ€&#x;s built heritage are the pressing concern due to their value and irreplaceable nature.

59

The destructed buildings are mostly villas or residential buildings with a maximum of 5 floors, they are then, nearly always, replaced by high-rise concrete „towers‟ of up to 20 floors, this of course presents an overload on the city‟s infrastructure such as; sewage, electricity, rubbish collection systems, transportation and traffic. All this is of course on top of the disturbing issue of losing valuable buildings and fabric.

The next section will provide statistics, indicators and examples, which will stress and clarify the extent of the problem, highlighting the rapid loss and deterioration of Alexandria‟s architectural and urban fabric.

4.2 Statistics A total of 1135 buildings were listed as heritage in Alexandria, according to the heritage list issued by the prime-ministerial decree 278/2008. In accordance to law 144/2006, 193 grievances were filed by the owners of listed buildings or their representatives, asking for the removal of their building from the list, 37 of which were accepted, while 156 were denied. The total number of recorded demolitions up to this date (October 2013) is 38, 8 of which took place before the revolution of the 25th of January 2011, while the remaining 30 took place after the revolution. Of these 38 demolished buildings, 10 had been officially removed from the heritage list following the acceptance of their respective grievances, 12 were demolished after their grievances were denied, while the remaining 16 were either demolished illegally or after gaining juridical permission following a law suit(Source: AlexMed-Bibliotheca Alexandrina). This is in addition to the demolition of; other listed heritage buildings whose demolition has passed unrecorded and other heritage and heritage buildings which were not listed in the heritage list of 2008, but which possess significant characteristics (examples of this later type are mentioned in the examples section below).

4.3Indicators One of the most prominent indicators of the deteriorating state of Alexandria‟s urban fabric is the number of buildings which were built without permits in registered heritage areas, and which do not adhere to the building guidelines and regulation for these areas. This number is relatively large, and quite evident when comparing photographs of these areas through time intervals. The deterioration is particularly striking when comparing a photograph directly before the revolution and a recent one. After his last visit to Alexandria; Michel Hanna –a Cairen blogger interested in heritage- wrote an article under the name of „The destruction of Alexandria‟ at the 60

beginning of this article he states; “when I visited Alexandria this year, I found it very different from last year, there was demolished buildings everywhere and number of high-rise buildings rising endlessly, as if there was a race to build the tower of babel.

Even the sacred heart of the city; the former European quarter, Ramleh Station and Mansheya neighbourhoods, which are the equivalent of Cairo‟s downtown or even more beautiful, has been subjected to this destruction.” (Hanna 2012, August 13)

Figure 9-View across Eastern Harbour towards Ramleh Station in 2010, (photo source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/omaradel-ph/10408490665/sizes/o/in/photostream/)

Figure 10- View across Eastern harbour from Ramleh Station in 2013, (photo source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/99808786@N06/9429776038/sizes/o/in/photostream/)

61

The deterioration is also evident in the Bahary neighbourhood (listed as a heritage area) or as it is sometimes called „the ottoman town‟, this fact is supported by the recently published documents, by the management of the Gomrok district (which mainly compromises of the ottoman town‟) and which state that at least eight ottoman houses in the district which were listed as heritage have all been demolished since the revolution of the 25th of January, and replaced by high-rise residential blocks (Ibrahim 2013, April 25). Comparing the two photos below shows the impact on the area.

Figure 11- View of Bahary neighbourhood from Yacht club in 2008, (photo source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/93715485@N00/2346377092/)

Figure 12- View of Bahary neighbourhood from Yacht club in 2013, (photo source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/niko-tine/8758692257/)

62

Another indicator is the number of heritage buildings which have been subject to; demolition attempts or have actually been demolished. This number has increased significantly since the revolution, to the extent that some of Alexandria‟s streets are now unrecognisable.

The number of heritage buildings which have been subjected to encroachments, is also an indicator for the extent of the problem. This number is one of the largest, with many of these encroachments being carried out in a non-professional way and with no permits, to provide for contemporary socio-economic needs. The causes of this practice will be discussed in the next subchapter.

4.4 Examples To further justify and comprehend the statistics and indicators above, significant examples of; 1. Built heritage which has been demolished 2. Built heritage threatened with demolition.

3. Built heritage subjected to aggressions and encroachments Will now be provided 4.4.1Built heritage which has been demolished 1. Cinema Rialto Cinema rialto was located in „safia zaghlol‟ street in the heart of Ramleh station-downtown Alexandria. It was designated as heritage in the heritage list of 1999 but not included in the current list. Its demolition is part of a trend which has been going on for the last couple of decades it Alexandria; 35 other standalone cinemas have also been demolished through the years, most of which were also located in Alexandria‟s downtown; Ritz, AlCosmo, Tatweeg, Majestic and Adion to name a few. These standalone cinemas have always been part of Alexandria‟s heritage and identity. It was in Alexandria that the cinema industry was introduced to Egypt, The city, hosted the following important events in the history of Egyptian cinema (El-Dessouki 2013, April 22): 

1896-The first cinema film screening



1897-The first building specialized in screening cinema films



1897- Shooting of the first cinema film



1907-First Egyptian movie studio 63



1919- Home to the first specialized cinema magazine

Figure 13- Cinema Rialto: Far left: impression drawing by former Alexandrian artist, Camille Fox (photo source:http://camillefoxart.com/gallery.php?cat_id=71). Middle: photo taken in the 1980’s, (photo source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kencta/536019435/). Far right: Before demolition, (photo source: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/4416652)

Moving back to the case of cinema rialto; It was bought by a real-estate investment company, then it was closed down with signs but up around it promoting that it was going to go through renovations, along with a copy of the permission allowing them to do so. In appearance; renovation work commenced on the property. Later all the inner walls and floors were removed, followed by the roof. Then suddenly, in April 2013, bulldozers drove in and it was demolished. The investment company are now advertising that it will be replaced by the modern designed „Rialto Mall‟ of which 3D images have been put up around the now empty land (El-Dessouki 2013, April 22).

Figure 14-Left: Inner view of cinema rialto during the advertised 'renovation'. Right: showing current situation. (photo criedts: Rana Elmahallawy

Following disapproval of the demolition and the 3D images of the replacement building by interested professionals and a media coverage triggered by SaveAlex 64

(pressure group; interested in conserving Alexandria‟s built environment.) the owning investor company, contacted Save Alex asking for a meeting. This meeting never took place, but the investor company announced an open architectural competition for the design of „Rialto Mall‟. This competition is thought to have been no more than a marketing trick; this is due to two reasons. Firstly the competition guidelines (included in Appendix) were near to nothing, with no requirements for the incorporation of the surrounding urban fabric or the consideration of the architectural style of the former or surrounding buildings. Secondly after the announcement of the competition results (to be further discussed along with their implications in the education section of chapter five) the investor company announced that this was just an ideas competition, in other words no entry was to be executed, ideas from all entries would be considered and incorporated in a new design under the supervision of the company. (Source: Interview with Arch. Ahmed Hassan Moustafa, co-founder of Save Alex) 2. Residential building- Mansheya neighbourhood This apartment building was located at the intersection between „Salah Salem Street‟ and „debana Church Street‟, with the address of „2 Debana Church Street‟, listed as heritage under the number 62-Wasat (central) district. Salah Salem street (formerly known as „Rue Cherif Pasha‟) is a significant street in Alexandria, its urban pattern, has stood unchanged since the British bombardments of Alexandria in 1882, with grand European style buildings of Italian influence lining both its sides (Haag 2008).

Figure 15- Left: Historic perspective of 'Rue Cherif Pasha', (photo source: http://aaha.ch/photos/cherif.htm), Right: Contemporary state of the same street showing minimal change, (photo credits: Rana Elmahallawy)

65

Since the designation of this particular building, its owners have filed grievance to heritage committee asking for the removal of their building from the list, when this was denied, they pursued a law-suit, which ended in their favour permitting them to demolish the building, a decision which was supported by an expert report, stating that it was prone to collapsing/structurally unsound. Following this juridical rule, its demolition began (September 2012), taking two weeks of continuous work to be completed (El-Dessouki 2012, September 24).

Figure 16- Left: Photo taken before demolition, (photo creidts: Ehab Zaher, photo source: http://thewallsofalex.blogspot.com). Right: Showing current situation (photo credits: Rana Elmahallawy).

66

3. Residential Building- Ramleh Station This building was located on 79 „Fouad Street‟ (Horreya avenue), listed. Like „Salah Salem Street‟, „Fouad Street‟ is also a significant street in Alexandria, retaining a large part of it urban fabric, buildings and architectural character, of the early 20th century. This building was subjected to an unprofessional architectural renovation a few years ago, which resulted in the loss of a large part of its architectural character. It was then bought by a real-estate investment company, which finally demolished it in June 2012 (El-Dessouki 2012, June 28).

Figure 9- Left: photo taken after unprofessional renovation (photo credits: Dr Mohamed Adel ElDessouki, photo source: http://thewallsofalex.blogspot.com). Right: photo after demolition (photo credits: Dr Sahar Dergham, photo source: http://thewallsofalex.blogspot.com)

4. Villa El-Nakib

Figure 17- Left: taken in 2007. Right: after demolition. (Photo credits: Dr Mohamed Adel El-Dessouki, photo source: http://thewallsofalex.blogspot.com)

This building was located in sporting district, 239 „Horreya avenue‟, in front of sporting club, listed as heritage under the number 254-Shark (Eastern) District.

67

The significance of this Villa stems from its intangible heritage, It was the residence of Queen Nariman, Egypt‟s last queen, during her second marriage to „Adham El-Nakib‟, it was also home of her son Akram ElNakib, half-brother to Egypt‟s last official king „Ahmed Fuad ‟. This villa was removed from the heritage list, by a prime-ministerial decree following a juridical rule of Alexandria‟s administrative court, which stated that according to the law; For any building to be listed as heritage it must possess architectural significance and not only intangible heritage (this is an issue which will be further discussed in chapter five, Legislative section). Thus the owners were free to do as they please with it and it was demolished in July 2012, and the land now lies empty (El-Dessouki 2012, August 3).

5. Boutique hotel-Gleem neighbourhood This building was located on 41 Ismail Al-Habrook Street, listed as heritage under the number 1919- Shark (Eastern) District. It was designed by Egyptian architect Moustafa Fahmy (1886-1972), the chief designer of royal palaces 1930-1952. The villa was professionally renovated a couple of years ago and reused as a boutique hotel under the name of „La Villa‟, this was a leading model. Like all other businesses and especially those depending on tourism like this one, the hotel went through economic problems following the 25th of January revolution. Finally, the building was demolished early May 2013 without a permit, and the land currently lies empty functioning as a public car park (SaveAlex).

Figure 18- Left: exterior after transformation to a boutique hotel. Right: Interior view of reception during its functioning as a boutique hotel. (Photo source: http://www.yadig.com)

6. Private Villa-Gleem neighbourhood This building was located on 89 Abdel-Salam Aref Street, and listed as heritage under the number 1203- Shark (Eastern) District. The demolition of 68

this particular villa was carried out in stages. The process started just after the revolution of the 25th of January, march 2011 to be specific, this was at the height of the security break down and thus taking advantage of the situation demolition began without any permit (this situation was repeated multiple times all around Alexandria). The demolition was stopped at the time after several local reports to the military police, which were able to stop this illegal demolition, despite this, the building was left in a deteriorated state with half its façade gone. The process commenced in early June 2012, bulldozers began their work at night to complete what they had started more than a year ago. Again several locals filed reports to the police, who once again stopped the process before its completion; the villa was now in an even worse condition. This time the next stage started the following day, the same process of ; police reports and stopping the process, continued for several nights, until the villa was completely demolished. The land currently (more than a year later) lies empty, and is used as a public parking (El-Dessouki 2012, June 28).

Figure 19- Left: before any demolition attempts, (photo credits: (Photo credits: Dr Mohamed Adel ElDessouki, photo source: http://thewallsofalex.blogspot.com). Right: after first demolition attempt, 2011. (photo credits: Heba Mo’nes, photo source: http://thewallsofalex.blogspot.com).

Figure 20- after third demolition attempt, 2012, (photo credits: Marwa Taha, photo source: http://thewallsofalex.blogspot.com).

69

7. Private Villa-Gleem neighbourhood This building was located on 553 Horreya Avenue. Its ground floor used to accommodate a well-known furniture shop, which had helped keep it well maintained. Recently, it was evacuated, and signs began to appear outside it, bearing information of an on-going legal dispute over its ownership. In July 2012 it was demolished overnight (El-Dessouki 2012, August 3).

Figure 21- Left: state while occupied by furniture store,2007. Right: current state. (Photo credits: Dr Mohamed Adel El-Dessouki. Photo source: http://thewallsofalex.blogspot.com).

8. Greek Club –Ibrahimia neighbourhood The Greek club was located on the ground floor of a residential building located on „Salah Zohni Street‟, a small side street in Ibrahimeya neighbourhood. This was not the original location of the Greek community club in Alexandria; it was moved here after its original property was damaged during World War II (Support 2012, April 21). It was not listed as heritage, but was part of the memory of the Alexandria society. It was demolished in June 2012. Public protest stands were organized against its demolition and short interviews revealed; public disapproval, claiming it was part of the collective memory.

Figure 22- Interior while the building was being emptied in preparation for demolition. (Photo credits: Emad Maher, Photo source: http://sotorkotebtbma2.blogspot.com

70

4.4.2 Built heritage threatened with demolition.

1. Villa Aghion This building is located on 75 Menasce Street in Wabour El-Maya neighbourhood, and is listed as heritage under the number 631- Wasat (Central) district. It was constructed in 1926 for Gustav Aghion. It was designed by August Perret, who is known for being the first architect to use reinforced concrete. It is worthy to mention that; in appreciation of his leading role in architecture, the UNESCO has recently added a group of buildings of his design to the „World Heritage List‟. August Perret designed four buildings in Egypt, of which Villa Aghion was the first. It carries special significance as it marks the start of a new stage in Perret‟s designs, being the first building in which he used red brick as a decorative element, a trend which he continued to use in his designs, even outside of Egypt. August Perret‟s work in general and this villa in particular, are an important part of most architectural history curriculums (El-Habashi 2009, August 28). The Villa‟s Current owner wish to demolish it, for the sake of economic benefit, and has filed a grievance to the Heritage Committee in Alexandria asking for the building to be removed from the heritage list, this was denied. A demolition attempt in 2009 resulted in the destruction of part of the eastern façade, specifically the structure carrying it. This attempt was stopped when the chairman of the heritage committee in Alexandria –Dr. Mohamed Awad- contacted the governorate which sent a police force to stop this illegal attempt (El-Habashi 2009, August 28). Another demolition attempt took place in August 2012, which was once again stopped by a police force. This time the owners claimed that thugs had seized the villa and tried to demolish it without their knowledge.

Figure 23- Left: Figure 24- Left: eastern façade, after completion, 1922, (photo source: Britton 2011) Right: Showing villa after demolition attempt in 2009, (Photo credits: Dr Mohamed Adel El-Dessouki.

Photo source: http://thewallsofalex.blogspot.com).

71

2. Villa Ambron This villa is located on 19 Al-Ma‟amoun Street, in the neighbourhood of Moharam Bey, listed as heritage under the number 1687 Wasat (Central) district. It was constructed in the 1920‟s for the prominent Italian civil engineer and architect, Aldo Ambron and his Painter wife Amelia Ambron. It was designed in grand baroque style with many significant architectural features, which includes; its octagonal tower, which adds to its grandeur and the detached purpose built artist studio, known for its embedded roman columns, which was designed by Italian architect, Alessandro Loria (better known for his design of the Cecil hotel) (Redwine 2008).

The significance of this Villa is further compounded by the fact that it was the residence of Laurence Durrell during his stay in Alexandria. It is widely known that this Villa greatly inspired his famous book series „Alexandria Quartet‟. Following the end of World War II, Laurence Durrell left Alexandria and the Ambrons migrated to Italy, renting out the villa (Miller 2005, December).

The Villas last residents were renowned Alexandrian artist couple; Effat Nagui and Saad El-Khadim. Following the death of Effat Nagui in 1995, the ambron heirs sold the villa and its grounds to an Alexandrian real-estate investment company. This company went on to build two high-rise apartment blocks in place of the Villa‟s characteristic wooden gardens (Miller 2005, December). Throughout the years, there have been many failed attempts by the owner company to get a permission to demolish the actual villa and detached studio; this has included a grievance to the heritage committee in Alexandria, asking for the removal of the property from the heritage list, which was denied (http://www.urbanharmony.org). Meanwhile the villa and studio have been left to fall into ruins; ceilings and inner walls have fallen apart and the facades stands in a deteriorated condition with structure related cracks visible. There have been allegations that the owner has been deliberately damaging the property from the inside in hope that it would fall apart or become so damaged that it would be removed from the heritage list. These allegations have been denied by owner during interviews. He also emphasised that it was his right to benefit economically from his property, and is quoted to have said; "Yes, we know Lawrence Durrell has many friends, if they want to buy the villa they are most welcome. I have to say they know and love Durrell and appreciate his life and work. But they don't do anything for him. If they appreciate him so much and his contribution, why don't they 72

buy the place? They can collect the money from Durrell lovers everywhere." He has also expressed his willingness to sell the villa for $5 million dollars (Spencer 2013, September 15). It is worthy to mention that there have been rumours that; the owner has pursued a lawsuit and has recently attained a rule in his favour, meaning that he can now legally demolish the building.

Recently (October 2013), there has been rumours that the villa had been demolished; this is normally a sign that it soon will be. Some interviews, carried out

by Amal Fathy(a student in the faculty of fine arts-architecture department), revealed that the running price for an apartment in the apartment blocks built on the villa‟s grounds, is 570,000 Egyptian pounds. These interviews also revealed the diverse perception of the Villa by the surrounding society; The owner of the butcher shop, which is located next to the villa, could not understand why a building in such a condition could be of any importance, or why it got so many visitors, while another local woman (working in a small shop in front of the villa) was strongly against its demolition, stating that it was part of the area‟s history.

Figure 25- Villa Ambron. Left: showing degraded state of the artist studio designed by Alessandro Loria, (photo source:AlexMed newsletter, nov-jan 2008). Right: showing current degraded state of villa, (photo source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk)

3. Villa Cicurel This building is located on 404 Horreya avenue, in the neighbourhood of roushdy, It is also sometimes reffered to as 101 Ahmed Shawki street, due to its location between these two streets the fact that it has an entrance opening onto each of them (this case could sometimes cause some legal difficulties when listing a building as will be discusses in Sub-chapter3-legislative section). It was listed as heritage under the number 878-Shark (eastern) district, using the former address. It was constructed in the 1920‟s for the prominent Jewish business man Joseph Cicurel, famous for his chain of department stores which carry his name „Cicurel‟. It was designed for him by 73

French architects; Léon Azéma, Jacque Hardy and Max Edrei, using art deco style. Following the revolution in 1952 all of Cicurel‟s possessions were nationalised, including this villa, thus becoming a public property owned by the Egyptian government. In the 1970‟s it was used as a presidential residence. In the 1980‟s a 3rd floor was added to its original 2 floors, this was done with sensitivity to its original design and did not cause any visual disturbance. Currently this building is owned by „Pan-Arab shipping company‟ why and how the ownership was transferred from the Egyptian government to this company is unclear. This company has attempted more than once to get a permission to demolish this villa, starting with a grievance to the heritage committee asking for the removal of the building from the heritage list, which was denied, the company then pursued a lawsuit, the rule was not in their favour and the building remained on the list, finally they managed to get a prime-ministerial decree in 2012, stating the removal of the villa from the heritage list (El-Dessouki 2012, March 1).

Following this decree, protest stands organised by members of the Alexandria civil society interested in heritage, managed to compel the issuance of another prime-ministerial decree, prohibiting the issuance of a demolition permit for the villa and asking those responsible to stop any demolition attempts, despite this decree the building was not reassigned as heritage and still remains threatened.

Figure 26- Showing a protest stand in front of Cicurel villa-(photo credits: Arch Mohamed Abou Elkheir)

74

4. Okalle Menasce This building is located on 11 Tahrir square, Mansheya neighbourhood, and is registered as heritage under the number 98-Gomrok district. It was constructed in 1885 during the reconstruction of the place des consul after the British bombardment in 1882, designed by Italian architect Antonio Lasciac using neo-renaissance style, its layout a hybrid between the tradition caravansaries (wekala) and the milanian galleria (Khalil 2009). The building has been subject to many aggressions throughout the years, shop fronts, commercial signs and advertisement currently disfigure its faรงade, Its inner court also lies in a degraded state, mostly used for informal commercial purposes. This building is currently owned by; United Co. For Housing and Development, who have filed a grievance to the heritage committee in Alexandria asking for the removal of the building from the heritage list, this was denied but is still an indication that it is under threat (http://www.urbanharmony.org)

Figure 27 okalle menasce current (photo source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fassade_der_Gallery_Menasce,_TahrirPlatz,_Alexandria,_%C3%84gypten.jpg)

Figure 28- Far left: Showing faรงade degradation due to shop fronts. Middle: Showing faรงade degradation due to commercial signs. Far right: Showing degradation in inner court, due to informal commercial activity. (Photo source Khalil 2009)

75

5. Villa Spahi This building is located on 219 Geish Avenue (the cornice), Stanley neighbourhood, and is registered as heritage under the number 1104-shark (eastern district). It was constructed in the late 1950â€&#x;s designed by Egyptian architect Ali Sabet and despite its current neglected state it is considered to possess cultural and architectural significance. Its current owners have recently put it up for sale, at a price much higher than the value of the villa alone, which is an indication that the villa is under threat of demolition.

Figure 29 Villa Sabahi in its current state (photo credits: Ahmed El-Daly, photo source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/midoeldaly/3836486256/)

76

4.4.3 Built heritage subjected to aggressions and encroachments 1. Shallalat Garden Located in Alexandria‟s Latin Quarter, shatby neighbourhood, wasat (centeral) district. It extends along „Sultan Hussein Street‟ from Khartoum square to the intersection with „Fouad Street‟.

It is listed as a heritage area under the number 6003. This garden was constructed at the beginning of the 20th century replacing the city‟s northern fortifications of Mohammed Ali‟s time. It was designed by Maxime Monfront Bey, a Belgian engineer who was working at the time as the head of the department of landscaping and plantation in the municipality of Alexandria.

Monfront Bey integrated the site‟s existing elements into his design (ElDessouki 2013, January 12)., this included; the remains of the city‟s medieval walls and towers which had been demolished at an earlier time to make way for the city‟s expansion and the remains of the „Farkha canal‟ which had once connected the Mahmoudia canal with the sea, it was converted into the park‟s characteristic sent of ponds (Haag 2009). When it was first created, the garden was called „The Municipal Gardens‟, later it came to be known as „Nubar Pasha Garden‟ and currently it carries the name of „Shallalat Garden‟ The garden has gone through a process of deterioration since the late 20th century, this deterioration was mainly in the social standards of its visitors and the activities carried out in it (it came to be known at a time as a place for drug

77

abuse), but lately the physical condition of the park has also deteriorated as can be in the figures below.

2. Sidi-Gaber train station Located in Sidi-Gaber neighbourhood and is listed as heritage under the number 1425-Shark (eastern) district. It is named after the Sheikh Sidi-Gaber whose mosque is located nearby. The original station was a wooden building built in the same location in 1853 with the construction of the first railway line in Egypt. At the time of its construction this station served the newly forming suburb of Ramleh, currently this station is considered to be the main rail entry point to Alexandria and the second most important station on the CairoAlexandria rail line after Ramsis station in Cairo. During the mid-20th century the wooden building was replaced by the building which exists today. It was designed by Egyptian architect Mohamed Raafat in a simplistic modern style, characterized by; its horizontal lines with its clock tower being the only vertical element and its yellowish sand brick faรงade (Sharaf El Din & Ragheb 2013).

Figure 30- Showing Sidi-Gaber train station just after its opening in 1948 (Photo source: www.facebook.com)

78

In 2009 the Egyptian ministry of transportation together with the Egyptian national railways launched a project aiming to develop and commercialize the station. This development project was to include a shopping mall, a multistorey garage and a railway museum (Egyptian national railways authority 2010).

To house these additions a new structure was needed, this was carried out using new design ideas, elements and materials, with the philosophy of; „The new building embracing the oldâ€&#x;. The station was finally opened to the public earlier this year (2013) and according to the opinion of many professionals the new design is not in harmony with the original building both on the level of materials and architectural composition(Sharaf El Din & Ragheb 2013).

Figure 31- Showing rendering of Sidi-Gaber station development project as shown in advertisements (Photo source: Sharaf El Din & Ragheb 2013)

Figure 32- ShowingSidi-Gaber train station after completion of development project (Photo source: Sharaf El Din & Ragheb 2013)

3. The Corniche (Sea-Side Boulevard) The cornice was designed by the Italian planner Peitro Avoscane in the late 19th century (Awad 2009), this was according to the orders of Khedive Abbas Helmi II who was largely fascinated and influenced by the European sea side cities (Saad n.d). The construction of the cornice started in 1906 and ended in 1934, by which time the city of Alexandria was well connected by this sea side boulevard. The cornice was originally designed as a four lane road (two lanes 79

in each direction), by the end of the 20th century this came to be too narrow to deal with the continuously increasing traffic, as such, an expansion project began in 1998 and was completed in 2002. This expansion doubled the capacity of the boulevard in many areas but it also altered the image and function of the corniche, the following are its main drawbacks: 

It is now considered a highway and crossing it by foot has become very dangerous.



Many building and summer cabins characteristic of Alexandria‟s corniche had to be removed to make way for the expansion.



It left nearly no beaches



It destroyed many important underwater archaeological remains.



The stone and iron frame fences characteristic of Alexandria‟s corniche were removed and replaced by concrete elements.

Figure 33- Left Showing the corniche in cleopatra/sporting neighbourhoods before expansion. Right: Showing the corniche in cleopatra/sporting neighbourhoods after expansion (Photo source: www.facebook.com)

Figure 34- Left: Showing the corniche in Roushdy/Sidi-Gaber areas before expansion. Right: Showing the corniche in Roushdy/Sidi-Gaber areas after expansion. (Photo source: www.facebook.com)

80

Figure 35- Showing the cabins and corniche of Stanley bay before expansion (Photo source: www.facebook.com)

Figure 36- Left: Showing the corniche in Stanley are before expansion. Right: Showing the corniche in Stanley are after expansion (Photo source: www.facebook.com).

81

4. Villa Antoniadis This building is located inside the „Antoniadis Gardens‟, which lies north of the Mahmoudia canal, Smouha neighbourhood. It is registered as a heritage building under the number 1250-Shark (eastern) district. It was constructed mid-19th century by the Sir John Antoniadis (president of Greek community in Alexandria) as a family mansion, and is designed as a miniature version of „Palace Versaille‟. Later the Antoniadis family donated the property to the municipality of Alexandria, which developed it gardens opening part of it to the public at the time. The property was used for some time as a guest house for the visiting dignitaries; it has also hosted significant historical events such as the signing ceremony of the 1936 treaty between England and Egypt which granted Egypt limited independence, which was a great achievement at the time.

In 2004 the villa was donated by the governorate of Alexandria to the bibliotheca Alexandrina, part of the agreement was that the villa was to be renovated and its historically significant contents exhibited (Awed, Villa Antoniadis and its gardens).

Figure 37- Villa Antoniadis. Left: before renovations, (photo source: http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/antoniadis.htm). Right Current state, (photo credits: Mahmoud Khaled)

5. Okalle Moneferato This building is located on 2 Tahrir square, Mansheya neighbourhood, and is registered as heritage under the number 102-Gomrok district. It . It was constructed in 1887 during the reconstruction of the place des consul after the British bombardment in 1882, designed by Italian architect Lugi Piattoli, with great resemblance to the Milanian Galleria (Khalil 2009). It currently stands in a very degraded condition, Its façade, like all others overlooking Tahrir square, is disfigured with shop fronts and commercial signs, while its inner 82

court is in a chaotic state, used a traditional coffee shop, while its characteristic skylight stands in degraded condition with its glass missing and its iron skeleton suffering from corrosion. This is in addition to the informal structures which were added on its roof.

Figure 38-Okalle Moneferato. Left: Current state. Right: showing degradation of facade due to shop fronts and commercial signs. (photo source: Khalil 2009)

Figure 39- Left: showing degradation of inner court used as traditional coffee shop. Right: showing degradation of inner faรงade and skylight. (photo source: Khalil 2009)

Figure 40- Left: showing informal additions as seen from facade. Right: taken from the roof, showing informal additions and corrosion of skylight. (photo source: Khalil 2009)

83

6. Hotel Majestic/ Wakf Yacoub Dahan This building is located on 5 Orabi square, Mansheya neighbourhood, and is registered as heritage under the number 1351-Gomrok district. It was designed by architect Henri Gorra Bey and constructed by the industrial building company of Egypt in 1912, its unique grandeur added to the quality of the newly renovated place des consuls at the time (Awad 2008).

Figure 41- Hotel majestic in its original state, in 1910, (photo source: Awad 2008)

It was originally built as a residential building, later it became a renowned hotel under the name of „Hotel Majesticâ€&#x;, and it was in this hotel that E.M Forster (English novelist, known for his book; Alexandria: a history and a guide) resided during his stay in Alexandria. Following the revolution of 1952, it was transformed into an office building with its ground floor used for commercial purposes and went through a wave of degradation along with the whole square. During a revitalization project of the Tahrir and Orabi squares a few years ago, a concrete bus shelter was added right in front of the buildingâ€&#x;s main entrance (El-Dessouki 2012, April 30).

This building was subject to two stages of aggression: First aggression stage: The building suffered from severe degradation, suffering from lack of maintenance and structural problems, with its balconies cracked and its ornamentation falling apart; thought to be prone to collapsing/structurally 84

unsound. Its faรงade disfigured due to the various shop fronts and commercial signs, this is in addition to the informal constructions which were added on top and the poor condition of its two characteristic domes, one of which has already fallen apart, while the other is near to follow due to severe structural problems (El-Dessouki 2012, April 30).

Second aggression stage: The faรงade still suffers from severe degradation due to the commercial signs and shop fronts. The remaining dome has been removed, and the construction of two additional floors has begun.

Figure 42- hotel majestic- left: as described in first stage of aggression, (photo source: http://www.urbanharmony.org) Right: Current state after building of two illegal floors, November 2013. (photo source: SaveAlex)

Following this second stage of aggression, large media coverage (TV programs and newspaper articles) of this situation, resulted in the call for an investigation around this particular incident by the governor of Alexandria. As for the action that will be taken, this is still unclear.

85

7. Elite Restaurant This building is located at the tip of Safia Zaghlol Street, just before its intersection with Fouad Street. It is not registered as heritage, but its special character was reminiscent of the Greek character of the former cosmopolitan Alexandria. In the past it was a very prominent restaurant owned by a Greek family, recently it was sold to an Egyptian investor after the death of its last Greek owner. (Awad & Hamouda 2006).The new owner decided to carryout renovations to the exterior of the building; changing its characteristic turquoise colour and adding a second light structure floor.

Figure 43- Left: Showing orginal, (photo criedts: Alexandria Habebti group). Right: Current situation, (Photo credits: Rana ElMahallawy)

86

8. Various examples Below are a more examples of diverse aggressions common in Alexandria;

Figure 44- Left: Marhaba hotel, Orabi square –mansheya. Right: located in Safia Zaghlol Street, shop front degrading façade. (photo source: http://www.urbanharmony.org)

Figure 45- Left: Shopfronts and commercial signs disfiguring buildings in Salah Salem street-Mansheya.

Right: informal floors-Ramleh Station. (photo source: researcher)

4.5 Concluding remarks: The above concludes the descriptive section of this research. As such the existence of the research problem is confirmed. The detailed study of the circumstances surrounding chosen examples has exposed the extent of the current situation, placing the problématique in perspective, thus serving as a starting point for the exploration of the second proposed hypothesis.

87

Chapter Five Analysis of current situation This Chapter will address the examination of the second hypothesis (H2) and its subhypotheses (H2A, H2B, H2C, H2D and H2E).

5.1 Overview To address any problem we must first study and comprehend the context in which it exists, its causes and its outcomes. The following section will address the various aspects contributing to the high rate of disfigurement and loss of Alexandriaâ€&#x;s built heritage.

On many levels this problem is believed to be the outcome of the known political reasons and the resulting low level of security and control which has prevailed on all levels following the revolution of the 25th of January. Following further study of this problem it is evident that this problem has existed for quite a long period of time before the revolution due to different problems and was only compounded due to the low level of control. Thus the formation of my second proposed hypothesis, H2: Due to changes in contemporary social contexts, and the failure of built heritage in Alexandria to remain of relevance, attitudes of the society have changed towards it.

This is supported by the idea that; Social contexts, reflect different ways in which people interpret, value and understand buildings, landscapes and spaces around them (Bluestone 2000), and that it is these values and interpretations which dictates their goals, motives and actions, concerning their built environment. Accordingly, in an attempt to analyse the current heritage situation in Alexandria, my second hypothesis continues as follows: The following aspects of the changed social context have contributed to changed attitudes of the Alexandrian society towards their heritage: -

H2A: Lack of appropriate urban expansion.

-

H2B: Absence of political will

-

H2C: Local and global socio-economic trends and pressures

-

H2D: Ineffective heritage educational

-

H2E: Legislative drawbacks and impediments

88

5.2 Lack of appropriate urban expansion.

5.2.1 Overview Alexandria is a thin strip of land parallel to the Mediterranean coast, bounded from the south by the vast lake Mariout.

During the past couple of years there have been several attempts to find an urban extension for Alexandria, pressured by its constantly rising rate of population increase and crowding. These attempts have failed to attract the Alexandrian society as a whole, due to lack of efficient transport systems and infrastructure, they have only attracted a small portion of the younger generations belonging to lower and middle class, looking for any cheaper alternative to Alexandria.

5.2.2 Confirmation The above was confirmed through a series of focus groups, where a total of thirty participants were asked: If they would be willing to live in one of Alexandria’s urban extensions. They were also asked to provide reasons for their answers, whether yes or no. Answers to this question were as follows; -

Seven answered with a straight forward no, totally dismissing the idea.

-

Two answered with a straight forward yes, this was for the advantage of living in a private villa, enjoying the privacy and greenery.

-

Nineteen answered that they are willing to make the move, but the current drawbacks prevents them. They mentioned the following drawbacks; 

Lack of good quality schools



Lack of facilities of higher education



Lack of work opportunities



Lack of recreational facilities/ place to shop for daily needs

This meant that they would usually need to travel into the city on a daily basis. 

Unsafe roads, connecting these urban extensions to the city.



Lack of appropriate public transportation

This made the daily needed trip to the city very difficult.

89

It is worthy to mention that two of these participants already own properties in these urban extensions but do not use them due to the above mentioned drawbacks.

-

Two of the participants answered that they were already living in one of these urban extensions and expressed their wish to move back into the city, stating that this was for the same difficulties mentioned above.

5.2.3 Concluding remarks This failure to find an adequate urban extension for the city has dramatically increased the value of real-estate. This price inflation extends beyond, land prices, to the price of each m2 of any property, thus each added floor would increase the profit further. As a result, real estate investment has become very lucrative for any investor, which in turn presents significant pressure on owners and residents alike to demolish or add encroachments to their buildings.

Thus the first sub-hypothesis H2A could be deemed confirmed.

5.3 Absence of political will 5.3.1 Literature Survey The construction and identification of cultural heritage is always an act of politics and power, it depends on who defines cultural heritage and who has control to conceptualize its stewardship (Kuutma 2012 ).Thus, what we call heritage today is actually the result of a highly selective process which has taken place throughout history by conflicting powers in their attempt to prevail (Klein 2006).

Heritage recognition and promotion or neglect and destruction, has always been linked to the political will of those in control at a point in time. Realizing the vitality of heritage, in providing validation or legitimization for their present actions and polices, rendering them as continuing references to narratives of the past (Jewachinda 2004), represented in the promoted heritage, rulers have always worked to deploy heritage in their favour. In more modern times, rulers, recognized the importance of the promotion of heritage (or certain parts of it) in the construction and reconstruction of identity (Graham & Howard 2008) and thus worked to make use of this concept in legitimizing their political orientation and promoting certain social identities. This claim is supported by the fact that the emergence of the idea of heritage was known to be inherent to the concept of the nation state; “Indeed nationalism and national 90

heritage developed synchronously in nineteenth century Europe. The nation state required national heritage to consolidate national identification.” (Graham, Ashworth & Tunbridge-2000-183) .

Throughout history there has been many examples of the above, starting with, and the attempts of early Christianity to prevail, during which it targeted tangible icons of its rivalling world, in Egypt, this resulted in the destruction of many ancient Egyptian, this was supported by a decree issued by the roman Emperor Constantine, following the declaration of Christianity as the religion of the empire, the destruction of these symbols of “paganism” legitimized this transition (Hassan 2011). Another example could be found in Germany, during the reign of the Nazi‟s, who based the legitimacy of their rule on the “deploying a political rhetoric that attempted to regain the past, own national recovery and return the country to Germanic glory and a rebirth of a sense of being German” (Swoboda &Weirsma 2009). A clearer example would be the attempts of post-colonial countries to reinvent their identities by promoting certain parts of its earlier history (Avrami, Mason and Torre 2000) The above confirms the influence of politics on the valuation of heritage, suggesting the initiative confirmation of H2B. To examine the validity of my second subhypothesis H2B for the case of Alexandria, Egypt, critical analysis of Alexandria‟s historical development in contrast to the political agenda of those in power.

5.3.2 Alexandria As previously mentioned; Alexandria‟s modern significance stems from its cosmopolitan character. From the first quarter of the 19th century until the mid-20th century (or to be more specific the 1952 revolution), Alexandria was Egypt‟s „summer‟ capital, sometimes even more important than Cairo, with most of the commercial activity taking place there (Mansel 2012). Following the development process of Alexandria in history, it can be deduced that its cosmopolitan character was not linked to colonization. The existence of these foreign communities in Alexandria dates back to much earlier than the British colonization of Egypt and considerably later than the evacuation of the French expedition in Egypt (Haag 2008). They were attracted to Egypt and Alexandria in particular due to its high rate of economic prosperity, abundance of prestigious jobs available to them and the various advantages offered to them by the political management of the time, all this promised them a life much better than the one they had in their own countries (Mansel 2012). None of these communities tried to promote their culture to dominate 91

the others or the city itself, Alexandria during this time was as Michael Haag stated in the introduction to his book „Vintage Alexandria‟; “Alexandria was not a melting pot; cultures remained distinct. Nor was it a city of exile for expatriates; people were rooted in the city. Alexandrians participated in their communities while respecting the ways of others.”

The revolution of 1952 with its ruling concepts of anti-colonization, Arab nationalism and socialism, and the succeeding „Tripartite Aggression‟ (military confrontation in late 1956 between Egypt on one side, and Britain, France and Israel on the other) which followed the nationalisation of the Suez canal in 1956, resulted in a changed attitude towards foreigners, their presence in Egypt and the existence of their economic activities. Perceived as part of colonization or a symbol for it, they were now politically unwelcome. The first wave of foreign immigration from Egypt was triggered by the nationalization of most of their businesses, an even larger wave succeeded the 1956 war, when the social coexistence and tolerance of the cosmopolitan era, officially ran out.

Alexandria with its cosmopolitan identity, was viewed by the new revolutionary regime to be a symbol of colonial power and control and was therefore shunned aside, all its importance and the resulting care, detracted and all efforts diverted towards Cairo (the symbol of Arab civilization), developing it to become Egypt‟s sole capital, shifting Alexandria into the shadows and leaving it -and its built heritage-, to face its fate of deterioration under this new attitude of negligence.

Many contemporary practices and phenomena indicate that this attitude still exists, and can be considered to have become even more resolute. One of the most prominent indicators of this is the fact that nearly all the effort, money and expertise are invested solely in Cairo. This fact is true in all levels and disciplines and in particularly evident in the field of cultural heritage, both its tangible and intangible components. This fact is can be backed up by comparing several numbers in Alexandria and Cairo 

The number of conservation projects which have been undertaken in Cairo, in comparison to the same number in Alexandria



The number of documentation projects which have been carried out in Cairo, in comparison to the same number in Alexandria 92



The number of heritage buildings which have been reused in Cairo, in comparison to the same number in Alexandria.



The number of cultural events which promote aspects of intangible heritage, held in Cairo, in comparison to the same number in Alexandria.

5.3.3 Concluding remarks Due to the observed relation between the political agenda in Egypt and the rise and fall of Alexandria in the modern era, the second sub-hypothesis H2B could be deemed confirmed.

5.4 Local and global socio-economic trends and pressures These two aspects will be combined in one section due to their interdependent relationship. Prior to this they will each be discussed separately in literature survey, for better comprehension of the trends and pressures associated with each.

5.4.1 Literature Survey 5.4.1.1 Social The current climate of globalization and technological innovation, with its advanced telecommunication and audio-visuals, has transformed the whole world, a small village, and enabled people to become familiar with distant cultures. Due to the nature of images as powerful carriers of cultural influences, the unprecedented ease and rapidness of their transmission has had a particularly great impact on social aspirations and lifestyles around the world. Developing countries are the most prone to this influence, where their societies struggling to become respected members of the global community, try to adopt outward manifestations of modernity. This modernity being judged according to the emerging set of global standards. Due to the fact that in most cases, traditional built heritage does not comply with these standards, this exposure has largely had the effect of de-valorising the historic fabric in the eyes of the society; this effect has proved to be irrespective of the level of affluence of individuals. This has resulted in the common preference of replacing old structures with new ones built according to those global standards, which are thought to be symbols of higher social status (Serageldin 2000).

This global force is often accompanied by local forces which compound its effect.

Many pressures lead to the bypassing of historic structures/areas by development, this in turn results in the lowering of living standards, and eventually the obsolescence of these structures/areas, this obsolescence whether; structural, 93

functional, visual or locational, means that these structures/areas are no longer able to fulfil the needs and aspirations of their inhabitants (especially the younger generations), this has a de-valorising effect, enforcing a negative image of these structures/areas, tarnishing its image as a place to live and work. This negative image normally cases the migration of affluent residents and businesses, to modern structures/areas this results in; further deterioration. In most cases these structures/areas try to survive by imitating their modern rivals, resulting in the loss of their original unique character (Serageldin 2000).

The above is further compounded by the high cost of maintaining/renovating historic fabric, amidst the already existing economic pressures, in accordance to the rigid heritage guidelines of heritage legislations (Serageldin 2000), this often leaves the owner with no choice but to either, demolish the structure or renovate it in an unprofessional manner, both of which result in the loss of unique character.

5.4.1.2 Economic As a result of world-wide trends, the most prominent of which is the globalisation of markets, the economic agenda has become dominant, dictating much of our daily lives. An economist; Professor Arjo Klamer expressed the effect of this on the field of heritage conservation, as the following; “Economic values are dominant in the society at large and have a well framed canon of methods and tools to support them.

If the conservation field wants to have a greater influence in society, it must find a way of engaging (not simply resisting) the power and influence of economist work and business thinking� (Bluestone et.al 1998). The domination of the economic aspect in the field of heritage is even greater in cases where historic structures/areas have lost their social value, cultural significance or unique character. This loss of value leaves the structure/area subject to being reshaped according to the economic forces (Serageldin 2000).

The influence of global notion on built heritage is compounded by various local market forces, which include the following; 1. The increase in the real-estate market demand for new units. This pressures the heritage stock and presents a financial opportunity for owners (Rappoport 2011).

2. The developmental potential created by, the monetary value of land being greater than the monetary value of the heritage structure standing on it, this 94

can be compounded by the degraded state of heritage structure or market demands. The effect of this financial opportunity is made even greater by its contrast to the high maintenance/renovation costs of heritage structures, in the case of the absence of added advantages to owners; the effect is even further compounded (Serageldin 2000).

3. The rent-gap, a theory first introduced by Smith in 1987, and is the measure of the difference in the site‟s actual value and its potential value (Clark 1995).

This gap is made greater in the presence of rent control legislations, as is the case in Egypt. The effect of this particular market force is further discussed the legislative section.

Having addressed the influence of various social and economic trends (both local and global) on built heritage, comparative analysis with the circumstances observed in the case of Alexandria, Egypt, will now take place, to examine the validity of the third sub-hypothesis H2C. 5.4.2 Alexandria Considering the diverse nature of Alexandria‟s built heritage, and the resulting diverse socio-economic pressures facing each type, this section will address each type separately. For this sake Alexandria‟s built heritage will be categorized as follows; 

Areas/urban fabric



Pre-19th century buildings:



19th- mid-20th century buildings:



Public buildings



Small private residents

Areas/Urban fabric This section will mainly address the issue of the decline of Alexandria‟s downtown.

The social and economic decline of Alexandria‟s downtown, started with the development of new modern centres elsewhere in Alexandria, which started to provide more modern services which attracted the society away from the original downtown leaving it in near abandonment (Azaz 2004). Thus the areas declined on the social level which naturally resulted in an economic decline of the area as less people were now frequenting it, with a large number of those who still did of a lower 95

social and economic level and therefore of a lower purchasing power. This new social perception of the area negatively impacted both its residential and commercial components.

-

Residential: As a result of the above, the area started to lose part of its past „social statusâ€&#x; which was reflected on the value of its residential buildings, thus pressures began to appear to replace these buildings with imitations of the contemporary buildings which dominated the new modern area and have come to symbolize advancement. This was concluded, through the observation on increased number of demolition in historical down town and through short interviews carried out by residents of these areas (excluding Fouad street and Latin quarter) who expressed their wish to move to modern quarters

-

Commercial: Investments in the area gradually became unprofitable. A very prominent example of this are the downtown cinemas, which were very profitable in the past being the only available cinemas in the city, with the development of new cinemas which offered a higher level of service in the contemporary centres, they have witnessed a large wave of decline, and are currently only highly frequented during religious festivals and have significantly low prices due to their obsolete status. These low prices in turn contribute to their further deterioration due to the inability to cover maintenance costs, resulting in a non-ending cycle of deterioration.

This applies to all other types of businesses, and as a result owners are forced to either, imitate their modern competitors or selling up to investment companies which in turn would normally carry out modern mega projects of the type which have proved successful in the contemporary centres. An interview carried out by the researcher with one of the employees of Elite restaurant (further information can be found in Chapter four: current situation) which further proves the above; when asked about the reason behind the alterations the were currently carrying out, he replied; that it was only natural that they do so, to at least try to keep up will all the contemporary restaurants and cafes and franchises which have become so successful in other parts of the city, otherwise, he said, they would never be as profitable.

96

There are many other examples of these practices as mentioned in chapter four: current situation, the most prominent of which is the demolition of cinema rialto to be replaced by a contemporary shopping mall.

Pre-19th century buildings -

Owners of this type of property are normally of low economic standard, this magnifies the effect of any temptation to sell their land or replace it with a high-rise building, as they are normally in need of any economic gain.

-

Lack of contemporary facilities, such as sewage systems, sanitary facilities, lifts...etc., which presents a social pressure.

-

Social pressure stemming from their conception of the existence of a connection between a higher socio-economic level and the contemporary appearance of their building. This conception is the result of media images which promotes certain facilities and architectural styles of being better, in addition to the spread of a certain type of architecture in other areas (known to be of higher social standards) around the city.

This was concluded by means of several short interviews with residents of Bahary neighbourhood, observed to be living in historic buildings. The three points above summarise their answers to the following questions; -

If they like living in their current home?

-

What they feel is missing?

-

What are their aspirations concerning their place of residence?

-

Given a choice, would they demolish their property? And if so why?

One owner specifically told me, that “I was welcome to her property if I liked it so much in exchange for one not falling apart and with contemporary facilities”, adding that “they were real people just like you, not characters in a story” 19th- mid-20th century buildings Due to the issue of „frozen rents‟ (discussed in detail in the legislative section below), this type of heritage buildings face two main pressures; -

Economic pressure on the owners as they no longer benefit economically from the building in its current state.

97

-

Social pressure; due to the severe maintenance problems this type of heritage buildings experience, which results in the decline of its value in the society.

This strong relation between the deterioration of heritage buildings belong to this era (both physically and in value) and the rent control laws was concluded, by means of short interviews with owners and residents of such buildings. One owner, expressed her desire to demolish her building, which she had inherited along with her five siblings from their father, due to the low income they got from it (around 1200 EGP/year), stating that the tenants of the building they owned were much better off that her economically. Other owners expressed their deep annoyance from the fact that they felt they no longer owned their buildings, emphasising that they were unwilling to pay for any maintenance. Residents/tenants on the other had felt that they had every right to stay in their unit, generation after generation. Most of the tenants stated that they would be unable to pay the market price for their unit.

Small private residents The owners of this type of heritage structure commonly face the following pressures: -

High economic pressure, due to the fact that the economic value of the land on which their property stands, is much higher that the value of the property itself. This pressure is compounded by the investors interested in the land, who continue to pressure owner into selling, offering very high prices.

-

The economic pressure is compounded by the lack of alternative means of economic gain or added advantage to compensate for this. In addition to the lack of awareness of the possibility of reuse and the difficult legal procedures to do so.

-

Social pressure; as villas usually were built as part of a whole area/street planned for this purpose which contributed to its value, social status and privacy, all this is lost once high-rise buildings replace some on the small private residents.

The above was concluded by means of short interviews carried out with current and former owners of private villas. One former owner, told the story of why he 98

demolished his villa; stating that the story began when the building next to him was sold to a small real-estate company, who demolished it, replacing it with a modern high-rise building, following this the same company started contacting him asking to by his property, he refused, they then started pressuring him by throwing thinks into his garden and getting thugs to enter the grounds he finally gave up, selling them part of the grounds, later they continued to pressure him again, until he gave up the actual building. This is an extreme example, but is known to have occurred more than once. Other owners stated that they felt they lost all advantages of living in their villa after several neighbouring villas were replaced by high-rise buildings. While some other owners, expressed their wish to sell or demolish their property due to economic needs or the need for extra space/ more residential units for their children to get married, this was common in the cases where they had inherited the property along with siblings or relatives.

5.4.3 Concluding remarks The above, works towards, confirming the influence of socio-economic context on the valuation and state of built heritage. Thus, confirming my third sub-hypothesis H2C.

5.5 Ineffective heritage education This part will be divided in to two sections; the first will address pre-college education, while the second will address professional education. The latter will target architectural education in Alexandria and its effect of the city‟s architectural and urban fabric, with special focus on the faculty of fine arts- architectural department in Alexandria, its curriculum and its impact.

The literature review below will be used in relation to the former section (general education).

5.5.1 Literature review “From the community‟s perspective, there can be no intrinsic value attached to elements of the built environment that have lost their symbolic meaning and their cultural significance”

(Serageldin 2000, p 53).

There are many scales of society ranging from the global to the family (Pearce 2000). For the sake of this study; the focus will be on the scale of the national public society.

99

Education, especially the schooling stage, has a very great impact on the formation of the individual‟s characters, values and perceptions. This determines their future interaction with their society and surrounding (Delors 1996). Thus education transmitted through obligatory schooling has a large impact on the shaping of future societies History also plays a very important role in shaping societies; “History (or at least particular constructions of the past) is very important in identity formation and maintenance, as it can lend legitimacy to identities by giving them the appearance of timeless continuity and therefore an essential or natural quality” (Smith 1991).

Having established both the importance of history and education, it can be deduced that; knowledge transmitted through history curriculums, has a major role in shaping society‟s perception and valuation of various tangible manifestations of this history, thus impacting the value they attach to their built heritage. This in turn influences the prioritizing of protecting certain aspects of the built environment amidst the current challenging pressures.

Here it is also important to mention the interrelation between education and politics; “Education is deeply implicated in the politics of culture. The curriculum is never simply a neutral assemblance of knowledge, somehow appearing in the texts and classrooms of a nation. It is always part of a selective tradition, someone‟s selection, some group‟s vision of legitimate knowledge” (Apple 1993) Having clarified the above and aware of the politics of heritage recognition mentioned in the previous section, we will know study the influence of the Egyptian history curriculums on the perception of the history of Alexandria.

5.5.2 Alexandria 5.5.2.1 Pre-college education As mentioned in chapter two, pre-college education plays a very important role in shaping how individuals perceive their surroundings, their character and their values.

The history curriculum in Egyptian schools, promotes certain historical eras and their tangible remains, while others are just passed upon, thus endowing the former type with certain significance in both the conscious and unconscious forming minds of the young generations. The promoted periods include; the pharonic and Islamic eras, in addition to the „nationalist events‟ of the modern era, such as; the „Orabi Revolution‟ 100

1879-1882, the „1919 revolution‟ which was led by the revolutionary Saad Zaglol, the Egyptian resistance of British occupation and the 1952 revolution and its achievements. On the other hand the marginalised eras, include; the Greco-Roman, the Coptic and the rest of the modern period, including its many technological, architectural and educational advances.

Having stated these facts, it is important to note that Alexandria‟s heritage constitutes almost exclusively of the marginalised type, and therefore its value is very low in the consciousness of the Egyptian society at large. Thus using comparative analysis of this information with the above literature review, the influence of pre-college history curriculum on the social valuation of Alexandria‟s built heritage can be confirmed.

5.5.2.2 Professional education The undergraduate education of any profession shapes the way future professionals view their field; its values, its important aspects, its challenges and its needs. As mentioned above this section will focus on the analysis of the curriculum of one of the main institutions which deliver architectural education in Alexandria; (University of Alexandria- faculty of fine arts- architecture department), its impact on how its students view the field and consequently how they practice it, finally touching upon how these practices impact Alexandria‟s built environment. Here it is worthy to mention that; this institute is one of four institutes which perform the same task, the others being ; University of Alexandria- faculty of engineering- architecture department, Arab academy for science and technology- architecture department, Pharos university- faculty of engineering- architecture department.

Having studied the curriculum of this institution, in addition to my own personal experience as a former student there, it can be stated that the focus of this curriculum in on designing new buildings and areas. The three core subjects of architectural education clearly show this trend, as is explained below; 

Design: This was a continuous subject. Throughout the years; different architectural styles and design approaches were presented and explored, and different types of surroundings and contexts were presented and studied different ways of dealing with each type. Despite this the task was always designing a new building, not once was the reuse or revitalization of an existing building addressed.

101



Working drawings: This was also a continuous subject. It addressed the task of creating working drawings for building projects, for both the actual building and its landscapes. Here the focus was once again always on new buildings, the task of creating working drawings for the conservation or maintenance of existing buildings and how deal with different types of buildings with their diverse building materials, is not addressed.



Urban design: This subject is introduced in the 7th term for three terms. During my studies, this subject was mainly focused on planning and designing new uninhabited areas, the task of dealing with existing elements in the urban fabric was not fully addressed. Recently this has started to change and the focus has shifted to studying the historical development of Alexandria‟s urban fabric; its causes and impacts, and different approaches for dealing with the existing fabric addressed.

The effect of this shifted focus on student‟s appreciation of their city and its impact on how they wish to deal with it, was addressed in an in-depth interview with Arch.

Ahmed Hassan Moustafa, who has worked on developing and teaching this modified curriculum. He expressed that during field trips he had noticed a change in student attitudes towards built heritage of Alexandria, especially mentioning how students who previously want to replace anything old with new modern designs now (following the modified course) expressed their disappointment when they saw such changes in the city, he also mentioned how now many students organised outings in the area of downtown Alexandria, reflecting their appreciation of the area. This is in addition to the fact that he noticed an increase in the number of graduation projects dealing with reuse of buildings or urban conservation of heritage areas in Alexandria.

Only a handful of subjects address the historical aspect of architecture, with only one of these addressing the reuse and museography of heritage buildings and sites.

These subjects were as follows; 

History of architecture: This was a subject which was part of the curriculum every year. It started by addressing the pharonic architecture, and then moved onto the Coptic architecture, followed by Islamic architecture.



History of Alexandria: This was also a subject we took along a few consecutive years; its focus is on the Greco-Roman history of Alexandria. Its

102

main disadvantage is that it is taught by an archaeologist and not an architect and therefore focuses on archaeology. 

Reuse and museography: this is the only subject which addresses these important aspects of architectural education, its main disadvantage is that it only runs for one term and is an optional subject.

The above view was shared by Arch. Ahmed Hassan Moustafa, and Arch. Lama Fouad both of which work as teacher assistant, faculty of fine arts architecture department during and in-depth interview.

This could also be further confirmed by studying the specific case of the replacement of cinema rialto (more information found in chapter four: current situation).The initial design of this replacement, adopted a modern approach, with no consideration of the surrounding heritage fabric or buildings, it was designed by a young architect graduated from fine arts-architecture department. This can be proved to be the normal mind-set and not just an exception, by studying the winning entries for a competition to design the same building (launched after the initial design was advertised, more information on the circumstances can be found in chapter four), most of them adopt the same design approach as the initial design.

Figure 46- Winning entry of 'rialto mall' competition, adopts modern design approach foreign to surroundings, (photo source: Stanley- investment and real-estate)

The jury for this competition compromised of architecture professor from the architectural institutions in Alexandria, two of which are from fine arts-architecture department; the dean of fine arts and the head of the architecture department. This further confirms the notion that architectural heritage is not part of the architectural education in Alexandria (or at least in fine arts-architecture department).

103

5.5.3 Concluding Remarks Critical analysis of school history curriculums and the curriculum of fine arts architecture department, in addition to comparative analysis with related literature and the mentioned in-depth interviews, lead to the confirmation of the influence of education on the valuation and perception of built heritage. Hence the fourth subhypothesis H2D, can be confirmed.

5.6 Legislative drawbacks and impediments.

5.6.1 Literature Survey The introduction of laws to preserve and manage heritage is fairly new, especially to the non-western world. Despite this many of those working in the heritage field seem to think that laws are the most important tool for protecting our heritage. They spend time, money and effort in documenting heritage and fighting to issue laws to protect them, laws which are rarely effective or applicable. This has resulted in a set of beautifully written laws, lists of documented monuments and a deteriorating cultural heritage stock surrounded by an uncaring community, unaware of its worth (Komoot 2012).

There are currently many challenges facing the implementation of laws for the protection, management and deployment of heritage in development, this is the case around the world and especial here in Egypt.

One of the major obstacles facing the application of these laws is the fact that laws are a reaction to an illegal action. This is in no way the ideal solution to protect heritage, primarily because; reactions to be taken according to these laws are normally after irreversible actions, such as destructing historical buildings. The solution to this could be; that heritage professionals aid legislators responsible for heritage laws helping them to understand the possible dangers and risks facing heritage, so as to produce laws to designed to mitigate these damaging effects.

(Komoot 2012).

This necessity of being aware of possible risks facing heritage, introduces us to the next large obstacle facing implementation of heritage laws, this being, that these laws are traditionally the product of a top-down process, which in turn means that the society –ranging the small community to the larger society- are not part involved in composing these laws (even by researching their needs and problems), this is of course a huge problem, as these laws are supposed to be implemented by them, the 104

primary users of this heritage. This lack of involvement of the people, results in the detachment of these people from their heritage and therefore, they no longer have a sense of ownership of this heritage (feeling that it now belongs to the government, who is forcefully trying to implement laws, meaningless to them) this leads to strong feelings of hate or in the very least, indifference towards this heritage, which of course largely contributes to its deterioration (Serageldin 2000).

All the above is in addition to the fact that all heritage laws in Egypt are out-dated.

Legislators here in Egypt have not kept up with the evolution of heritage laws around the world and have therefore failed to keep up with contemporary needs, wants and rights. This has left us stuck with laws with the main aim of protecting physical structures, imposing rigid guidelines, very expensive and restricting to carry out, in a time where heritage organisations around the world are discussing and researching how to design better conservation schemes based on social value and how to use heritage conservation to promote development.

Here in Egypt those responsible still haven‟t realised that written laws have never and will never be enough, the professionals continue to fight for these laws –thinking that this is the best they can offer- totally oblivious (or ignoring) that these laws they fight so much to issue actually have no constitutional support and are in fact near impossible to enforce due to the fact that we have several organisations responsible for implementing these laws, several organisations who do not cooperate, who produce separate policies and plans and who actually seem to have conflicting interests and goals, none of which include the community.

In the end we all need to realise that laws, even if they can be forcefully implemented, are faced with the obstacle of the difficulty to identify, the offender, due to the nature of heritage offenses. This in addition to the irreversible nature of damaged heritage means that laws can never be a substitute for “voluntary” care and protection of heritage by the people. Legislations could be more effective if they consider the needs of the people, it they work with them and not against them. If they are accompanied by plans and polices which address issues of poverty and employment, and connect them to protecting heritage. Shifting the focus of heritage legislations from negative reactions (such as penalties) to policies and plans supporting positive management of heritage.

105

5.6.2 Alexandria As mentioned above, legislation are not always the answer to heritage conservation problems, and that unless these legislation take into consideration the various pressures faced by the society, attempting to facilitate the relationship between the society and their heritage, they would actually be working against the continuity of this heritage. Accordingly this section will address various aspects of the current Egyptian built heritage laws, which have proved to have a negative effect on heritage, further compounding the existing pressures, that built heritage in facing in Egypt and particularly in Alexandria, adopting a critical analysis approach.

5.6.2.1 The drawbacks of the top-down formation of laws Like all other current Egyptian laws, the built heritage law was composed in a top down manner, with no public participation in its creation. This is in addition to the absence of any articles in the law, promoting public participation in heritage management. The combined effect of this is the absence of social acceptance of the current built heritage laws which accordingly leads to continuous trials to overcome or break it.

5.6.2.2 The draw backs of the construction law 119 /2008 The draw backs of the construction law 119 for the year 2008, of which law 144 for the year 2006 -the first law specialized in the protection of build heritage is part of. 

„article 2‟ of Law 144 for the year 2006‟ states that: “It is prohibited to issue permits for the demolition or addition to buildings and structures of outstanding architectural style that are associated with the national history or a historic personality, which represent a historic era or that are considered a tourist attraction the foregoing shall be implemented without breaching any legal compensation.”

This legal statement with its current wording is interpreted as only encompassing buildings which possess both; outstanding architectural style and an intangible significance of those mentioned after the words “associated with”. Academically and according to recent international charter this condition is not necessary for a building to be considered heritage, despite this the existence of this article in its current state has had a severe effect on Alexandria‟s current heritage list, as according to this law, jurors rule in the favour of any owner who purses a lawsuit to remove his property from the list, if the building does not comply with this condition, this has caused the loss of 106

any significant properties, such as Villa El-Nakib (mentioned in Sub-chapter 2). 

As mentioned in „Section 2 of Law 119 for the year 2008 - Urban Harmony‟, „articles; 33 and 35‟ respectively; -

“It is prohibited to, permanently or temporarily, build, adjust, elevate, or restore any building, project, fixed or movable structure, encumber, move or displace of architectural features, statues, sculptures, ornaments from public spaces in areas of outstanding value without obtaining the prior approval of a the Administrative Concerned Body.”

-

“The government may propose the expropriation of some buildings of „Outstanding Value‟, or parts of it for public benefit and preservation in accordance with the provisions of Law no. 10 of year 1990 on the expropriation of real estate ownership for public benefit…”

In addition to „article 2‟ of Law 144 for the year 2006‟ which states: -

“It is prohibited to issue permits for the demolition or addition to buildings and structures of outstanding architectural style that are associated with the national history or a historic personality, which represent a historic era or that are considered a tourist attraction the foregoing shall be implemented without breaching any legal compensation.”

As a result of these articles, owners feel threatened by the placement of their building in the „Heritage List‟. They feel that they lose all control of their property and that they would no longer be able to benefit from it, whether by; reusing it, (which will need many alterations, which may not be permitted) or using it as a place of residence, as they will face many difficulties when maintenance is needed. This is in addition to their fear that; the government will confiscate it with no compensation, as is common in Egypt, despite the fact that the law states otherwise. This in addition to the absence of any added advantages, to compensate the owners, means that; owners prefer to avoid getting their building listed, going to the extent of escaping their place of residents, to avoid receiving the notification of their building‟s designation, then if they cannot escape; pursuing grievance or even lawsuits to remove their building from the list and finally, in the case where they are unable to 107

legally remove their building from the list, try to get rid of it, either by selling it or demolishing it illegally. This was concluded, by means of a series of short interviews with owners, those whose building was already designated as heritage expressed their annoyance with their apparent lack of control of their building, while those whose building was of heritage value but not yet designated feared its designation.

Here it must be mentioned, that in most lawsuits, the judges rule in favour of the owners, removing their buildings from the list. This is mainly due to two reasons; firstly, the unawareness of the judges of the nature and importance of built heritage, or even the difference between heritage and antiquities, which sometimes causes confusion, secondly, due to corruption, not necessarily of the judges themselves, sometimes it is of the officials working in the ‟distribution office‟ ( footnote: which is responsible for the distribution of the different lawsuits amongst the judges),who know which judges will probably rule in favour of the owners. 

The negative impact of the point above is compounded by the fact that; Law 144 for the year 2006 is entitled; “On the regulations of demolition of noncollapsing/structurally sound structures and the preservation of architectural heritage”. This provides a perfect loophole for those who want to demolish their designated heritage building by pursing a lawsuit. To do so they just have to prove that their building is structurally unsound, two approaches are usually adopted to do so. The first is to; Bribe an architect or structural engineer, registered in the engineering syndicate, to vouch that the building is prone to collapsing. The second is the more common and compromises of; intentionally rendering their unstable by damaging its structure, there are several approaches to do so, the following are the most common; -

Deliberately destructing the inner wall, ceilings and structures, in an attempt to make the building collapse from the inside out, giving the appearance that the collapse was unprompted

-

Leaving water taps on or pipes leaking in the building, this considerably weakens the structure, sometimes causing the building to collapse from inside-out, leaving only the façade intact.

108

-

Getting a bulldozer to drive into their building, and then either claiming it was just passing by and the damage was by accident or reporting to police that thugs attacked their building.

These actions are further encouraged by the fact that the punishments and penalties stated in the law (article 12) in the case of illegal demolition of heritage buildings, are nearly never carried out. The above actions were concluded through observation and short interviews with Alexandrians, who had witnessed such events first hand.

5.6.2.3 The drawbacks of the rent control law Thirdly; the negative impacts of „frozen rents‟, this impact encompasses all of Egypt‟s built environment and particularly its built heritage, as will be explained below.

The „rent control law‟ or the „old rental law‟ as it came to be publicly known, applies to structures built before the year 1996, with 2.6 million units under its control (2006 statistics-The central agency for public mobilization and statistics-CAPMAS) The first „rent control law‟ was issued in 1920, as a governmental attempt to guarantee stable housing for all citizens in light of the economic difficulties following World War I. This law saw several revisions following the 1952 revolution, during the reign of president Gamal Abdel Nasser, who, according to the new socialist regime, was attempting to raise the living standards of those with low income. Accordingly this law was amended 5 times between the years 1952 and 1965, ending with law7/1965 which lowered renting rates by 20%. This law was again amended in the law 49/1977, which froze rental values and enforced the renewal of the contract between the tenant and the owner, in addition to allowing the passing of rental contracts through generations. This law was finally amended in 1996, exempting building built post this date from „rent control‟. Despite this a large number of units still fall under the control of the old law, this includes a large part of Alexandria‟s built heritage.

In the years since 1977, the value of the Egyptian pound has plunged, resulting in economic inflation, thus the frozen rental values of that time are now insignificant.

One landlord complains that; “The garbage man gets more than what I get for rent” (add reference from article). This has negatively impacted build heritage with both its components; single heritage buildings and urban fabric which compromises of nonheritage buildings. The most prominent of these impacts are mentioned below; 109

1. Due to the insignificant rental rates, owners can no longer afford to pay for the maintenance of their building. Even in the cases where the owners are able to fund the needed maintenance from another source of income, they are unwilling to do so as they are no longer able to exercise any control of their building or its tenants and therefore unable to benefit from it. This is in addition to the fact that it is in the owners interest to let their building fall into disrepair, so that the tenants would be forced to leave and they would be able to benefit from their building once again by either; re-renting the units according to the new law or demolishing the building (either legally or illegally) and sell the land or rebuilt a high-rise building.

This results in; accelerated deterioration of built heritage, which in turn means that the building/area becomes visually obsolete, unattractive to the society, losing its value, thus prone to demolition, bringing us back to the beginning of the loop.

2. The illegal and non-professional addition of new floors on top of buildings, ruining part of their architectural character and making them prone to collapsing under their own weight. This is normally an attempt from the owners to gain any economic benefit from their buildings, as these new floors can be sold or rented according to the new law as the rent control law only applies to units built before 1996.

3. Large number of units left uninhabited, as tenants of units following the „old rental law‟ can afford to keep these units closed while living elsewhere due to the insignificance of the rent value. This compounds the already pressing problem of, lack of available residential units.

The phenomenon of uninhabited closed off units, extends past those who fall under the control of the „old rental law‟. There are 7.5 million uninhabited residential units in Egypt (2006 statistics-The central agency for public mobilization and statisticsCAPMAS) between rented according to the ‟old rental law‟ and owned, this contributes to enlarging the gap between supply and demand, thus rendering the real-estate industry even more lucrative for investors, therefore more demolition and building of high-rise buildings, again to the beginning of the loop. There is no attempt 110

by legislators to mitigate the effect of this phenomenon, one suggestion could be taxing any unit closed off for more than a year.

Finally; considering all the above legislative drawbacks in addition to the previously discussed pressures which Alexandria‟s built heritage is facing; it is only natural that a number of heritage buildings are demolished each year, this number has become particularly large following the 25th of January revolution (as mentioned in chapter four current situation). The negative impact of this loss is compounded by the fact that it passes officially unrecorded; this is mainly due to the following; 

The committee responsible for the designation buildings to the heritage list and revising it has not met to do so since 2007, therefore the last record of Alexandria‟s built heritage dates back to that year. This is despite the fact that the law 144/2006 states that it should meet at least once a year to carry out this task.



The law 144/2006 doesn‟t state architectural documentation as part of the required documentation to register a building as heritage, this means that when any heritage building is demolished, we are left with no record, unless it was documents by an individual effort which is rare.

5.6.3 Concluding remarks Through critical analysis of the current Egyptian laws which influence heritage, several short interviews and comparative analysis of the acquired results with the related literature survey presented above, the influence of Egyptian heritage legislation on the built heritage of Alexandria can be confirmed, thus deeming the fifth sub-hypothesis H2E as confirmed.

5.7 Concluding remarks Having discussed the various aspects of the social context and their influence in on built heritage, each being proved to be a contributor to the current situation of built heritage in Alexandria, as such, the five sub-hypotheses of the second hypothesis have been deemed confirmed, in addition to establishing the complexity of the current situation of Alexandria‟s built heritage, clarifying that it is a multi-faceted problem, in need of a comprehensive remedy.

111

Chapter Six Summary and Final Remarks.

This chapter will include; a brief summary of the research and its results, the limitations of this research and finally some brief recommendations and concluding remarks.

6.1 Summary Adopting a hybrid descriptive-explanatory approach this research addresses the currently pressing problem of; the degradation, marginalization and demolition of Alexandria‟s built heritage, a problem which has significantly magnified following the 25th of January 2011 revolution. Being an Alexandrian interested in heritage, the question of; why the built heritage of Alexandria was currently in this condition, has long interested me, this led to the formulation of the following problématique: What are the underlying causes or pressures which have resulted in this recognized degradation, marginalization and destruction of the built heritage of Alexandria, Egypt.

To address this problématique, a survey of related literature was carried out resulting in two main hypotheses. The first was that; the globally promoted notion of heritage is not native to our culture (in Egypt) and thus not rooted in the belief system of the society. While the second was that; Due to changes in contemporary social contexts, and the failure of built heritage in Alexandria to remain of relevance, attitudes of the society have changed towards it, five sub-hypotheses were added to this second hypothesis compromising of the proposed aspects which have contributed to the changed social perception of Alexandria‟s built heritage. These proposed aspects were; lack of appropriate urban extension, absence of political will, local and global socio-economic trends and pressures, ineffective heritage education and finaly legislative drawbacks and impediments. Examination of these two proposed hypotheses was carried out using qualitative research methods.

As such the first hypothesis was examined by surveying and critically analysing related literature. The origin and evolution of the concept of heritage was explored resulting in the comprehension of the fact that it originated in Europe amongst a wider social context and that its development was closely linked to the evolution of this social context. This was then contrasted with the original philosophy of heritage in Arab countries and in particular Egypt, finding that it was mainly linked to the 112

philosophy of „Waqf‟ and use value. The process of replacing this context based philosophy with the imported European one is then addressed with its impact on social conception of heritage discussed. To further highlight the relation between the alteration in social perception of heritage and social contexts, recent (second half of 20th century) influential factors in Egypt are addressed with their influence on the social valuation of built heritage emphasized. These factors were; rural migration, frozen rents, open-door policy and the orientation of related governmental bodies.

Having addressed the above it can be concluded that; ; the adoption of a philosophy foreign to the social belief system in addition to the influence of the discussed recent trends has contributed to altering public perception of built heritage de-valorising it conceptual value. Thus, the first hypothesis H1 can be deemed confirmed.

Prior to embarking on the examination of the second hypothesis it was deemed vital to address the historical background of the city of Alexandria, emphasising its urban development in relation to the evolution of its social contexts. This had two main purposes; firstly to place the research topic in perspective, by establishing the significance of the city, emphasizing the importance of protecting its remaining built heritage, and secondly to emphasis the impact of different social, economic and political contexts on Alexandria’s built environment throughout its history, thus supporting the second proposed hypothesis.

Next the current situation of built heritage in Alexandria was described using statistics, indicators and prominent examples, thus, confirming the severity of the problem. Following this description of the current situation, the research embarks on analysing its underlying causes and contributing influential aspects, as such exploring the validity of the second hypothesis and its sub-hypotheses. This analysis resulted in the confirmation of the second hypothesis and its sub-hypotheses, and established the complexity of the current situation of Alexandria‟s built heritage, clarifying that it is a multi-faceted problem, in need of a strategic solution.

113

6.2 Limitations and suggestions for future research This section will address the limitations of this research and suggestions for future researches needed to complement this research. 

Concerning research methods



Concerning available data



Concerning number of interviewees

6.2.1 Concerning research methods Having completed this research, the benefits of combining quantitative research methods with the adopted qualitative is realised, the limited time scope of this research has meant that this was not possible. Using quantitative research methods would have allowed for more accurate, statistically significant results concerning the social perception of certain issues addressed in this research. As such, it is recommended that future research addressing the same problématique adopts quantitative research methods, in order to complement and complete this research, helping in the formulation of an effective solution for the current situation.

6.2.2 Concerning available data Data collected in this research would have been much more abundant and accurate had the only research centre specialized in heritage studies in Alexandria (AlexMedBibliotheca Alexandrina) provided the researcher with the database and map of listed heritage buildings in Alexandria, their current condition and its underlying causes. It is recognized that this is the system of this organization and the statistical data they provided is highly appreciated, despite this, the drawbacks of this denial to provide researches with all available information has to be mentioned.

6.2.3 Concerning number of interviewees Due to the limited time scope of this research and the large scope of addressing problems facing all of Alexandria‟s built heritage with its diverse nature and location, the relative number of involved stakeholders concerned with each /type of Alexandria‟s built heritage was small. As such, the adoption of a similar research on specific heritage areas or segments/types of built heritage in Alexandria is recommended for further research, allowing for further comprehension of specific contexts, hence facilitating effective solutions for each.

114

6.3 Recommendations Value based management is vital to effectively carryout built heritage protection; as such, heritage professionals, need to shift their view of heritage, from ungrounded romanticism, to the perception of the „people‟, for it is they, who are the real custodians of this heritage, it is their daily lives which are affected by the presence (or not) of tangible heritage entities, and it is actually only them who could ensure the sustainability of its survival. Perhaps the time has come for heritage professionals to step down from their pedestals and shed their role as controllers, embracing the various pressures and changes in valuation of built heritage brought on by the changes in context, as challenges and not forces to be contained, becoming facilitators and moderators of the heritage conservation process, working for the society‟s needs and aspirations, providing advice and not superior orders. “Heritage professionals need to act less like „heritage police‟ and more as facilitators” (Emirek 2009). They must come to accept the current state of heritage structures/areas, with what they see as “ugly” additions and interventions, recognizing that they are only a reflection of contemporary needs and wants, working to enhance the social and economic value of these structures/areas, ensuring their usefulness in contemporary society, accepting the compromise of the traditional historical and technical aspects and devising strategic approaches, designed to accommodate change, instead of the current rigid operational ones.

The above would only be effective if the contemporary values, needs and aspiration of each society are correctly identified; thus, considering that the society will always know its problems and needs better than any professional however much they study and that; “unless we focus our attention on the reality of how the city functions and the residents are empowered with the role of determining the cultural significance, unless the citizen‟s views are sought on how he perceives the future of his heritage, we cannot grasp the cultural significance of the city” (Baig 2002), the need for public involvement arises. In addition to the benefit of helping professionals better comprehend the context they are working in, involving the society in devising heritage polices and plans will also motivate them to protect this heritage, regenerating the lost feeling that it actually belongs to them, it will also increase their awareness of its tangible and intangible values (this has proved to be vital for the appreciation of heritage), this is in addition to the to the increased probability of their

115

compliance with heritage policies and regulations as they would have been devised in accordance to their needs.

For some time there has been a global demand for the deployment of public participation in the field of urban and community development, supported by large international associations such as the United Nations, accordingly many international funding associations have been offering funding for such projects. In Egypt this has led to the adoption of this approach as part of gaining global respect and political legitimization, this has resulted in ineffectiveness of this approach as it does not offer real empowerment of the community and thus has no effect on the outcome of the process (Shehayeb 2012).

Here it must be mentioned that; there are many levels of public participation, starting from informing and manipulating to citizen control. The levels closer to the former are being very widely used, just so that it can be said that this project was based on public participation, while the latter is very rare, as it is a very complex process and involves a lot of time, effort and compromises from the conservation team, many of whom find it to be too much and unnecessary. Using levels of public participation closer to “citizen empowerment” is an essential tool for any team hoping to produce sustainable heritage polices (Ahmed 2012).

To decide on the best level of participation to adopt, we must further understand these levels. (Arnstein 1969) presented the following typology of levels rising proportionally with their numbers; 1. Manipulation 2. Therapy 3. Informing 4. Consultation 5. Placation 6. Partnership 7. Delegate power 8. Citizen control With levels 1and 2 considered to be in reality “non-participant” and any of the levels 6 through to 8 considered as being efficient public participation (Ahmed 2012).

116

6.4 Concluding Remarks Having exposed the current heritage situation in Alexandria, and analysed this situation, in accordance to the different aspects of the current context. It can be deduced that there is a gap between heritage polices and plans and the society‟s needs and aspirations, this has led to the deterioration of the state of built heritage in the city, rendering their protection a low priority in today‟s social agenda.

The lack of consideration of social dynamics, by heritage professionals, has led to compounding the existing pressures on built heritage. The inheritance of colonial top-down heritage protection approaches, in addition to forming their polices around out dated Eurocentric charters; based on the notion that, once a building is listed and legislated for it is protected and attempting to „fossilize‟ elements of the built environment which they consider as heritage, has further widened the gap between the society and its heritage.

This study has attempted to expose the current situation of built heritage in Alexandria, the pressures influencing and the aspects contributing to the existence of this gap, this was in belief that to effectively embark on the process of closing this gap between the society and its heritage a better comprehension of the whole situation is needed.

117

References and Bibliography Ahlfeldt, G., Holman, N. & Wendland, N. (2012. An assessment of the effects of conservation areas on value, The London School of Economics and Political Science Report.

Ahmed, I., (2012),A study of architectural heritage management by the informal community bodies in traditional neighbourhoods of Old Dhaka (Doctoral Thesis),National university of Singapore, department of architecture. Singapore.

Apple, M.W. 1993. The Politics of Official Knowledge: Does a National Curriculum Make Sense?. Teachers College Record. Vol. 95(2), pp 222-241.

Armitage, L. &Irons, J. 2011. The value of built heritage: Community, economy and environment. Paper presented at the17th Annual Pacific Rim Real Estate Society (PRRES) Conference, 16-19 January, Gold Coast, Australia.

Arnstein, S. R.1969. “A Ladder of Citizen Participation�, JAIP, Vol. 35(4), pp. 216224.

Avrami, E., Mason, R. and Torre, M. 2000. Report on research. In E. Avrami and R. Mason (Eds.), Values and heritage conservation: research report (3-12). Los Angeles, USA. The J. Paul Getty Trust.

Avrami, E., Mason, R. and Torre, M. 2000. Conclusions. In E. Avrami and R. Mason (Eds.), Values and heritage conservation (68-70). Los Angeles, USA. The J. Paul Getty Trust.

Avrami, E., Mason, R. and Torre, M. 2000. Overview. In E. Avrami and R. Mason (Eds.), Values and heritage conservation (14-17). Los Angeles, USA. The J. Paul Getty Trust.

Awad, M. 2009. Italy in Alexandria: influences on the built environment. Alexandria, Alexandria preservation trust.

Awad, M. & Hamouda, S. (Eds). 2006. Voices from a cosmopolitan Alexandria.

Alexandria. Bibliotheca Alexandrina.

Awed, Z.A. -. Antoniadis Villa and its Gardens. Retrieved October 2013. From http://www.touregypt.net.

Azaz, L.K.A. 2004. Monitoring, modelling, and managing urban growth in Alexandria, Egypt using remote sensing and GIS (Doctoral Thesis), University of Newcastle, School of architecture, planning and landscape. Newcastle, England, UK. Baig, A. (2002). The politics of cultural significance, in Urban development vs heritage conservation, paper 3. Retrieved February 6, 2013. From http://www.macauheritage.net/en/knowledge/vision/vision_085.pdf 118

Bluestone, D. (2000). Challenges for Heritage Conservation and the Role of Research on Values, In E. Avrami and R. Mason (Eds.), Value & Heritage Conservation Research Report, The Getty Conservation Institute (65- 67). Los Angeles, USA. The J. Paul Getty Trust.

Bluestone, D., Klamer,A., Throsby, D. & Mason, R. 1998. The economics of heritage conservation: A discussion, In R. Mason (Eds.), Economics and heritage conservation, The Getty Conservation Institute (19-22). Los Angeles, USA. The J. Paul Getty Trust.

Brightman, M. 2012. Is the conservation of the United Kingdomâ€&#x;s built heritage sustainable?. Reinvention: an International Journal of Undergraduate Research, BCUR 2012 special issue. Retrieved April 2013, from www.warwick.ac.uk/go/reinventionjournal/issues/bcur2012specialissue/brightman.

Clark, T. E. 1995. Rents and prices of housing across areas of the United States: A cross-section examination of the present value model. Regional Science and Urban Economics. Vol 25(1). pp 237-247.

Delors, J. et al. 1996. Learning: The Treasure Within. Paris. UNESCO. Denoix, S. 2000. A Mamluk Institution for Urbanization: The Waqf. In BehrensAbouseif, Doris (eds.) The Cairo Heritage: Essays in Honor of Layla Ali Ibrahim.

Cairo. The American University in Cairo Press.

Doratli, N.2005. Revitalizing historic urban quarters: A model for determining the most relevant strategic approach. European planning studies, Vol.13 (5), pp 749-772 Drury, P. 2012. Conservation: An evolving concept. Retrieved February 10, 2013.

From http://www.buildingconservation.com/articles/conservation/conservation.htm Egyptian national railways authority. 2010. Sidi-Gaber train station,Alexandria, Egypt: Utilization rights, facility and property management proposal.Retrieved November 2013, from http://ihale.tobb.org.tr/dosya/1043_MISIR.pdf.

El-Dessouki, M. A. 2013, Jaanuary 12. About the elimination of history‌and coexisting with it. Message posted to http://thewallsofalex.blogspot.com. (Arabic).

El-Dessouki, M. A. 2013, April 22. The facts behind the disappearance of Cinema Rialto. Message posted to http://thewallsofalex.blogspot.com. (Arabic).

El-Dessouki, M. A. 2012, September 24. Glory to the bulldozer. Message posted to http://thewallsofalex.blogspot.com. (Arabic).

El-Dessouki, M. A. 2012, June 28. Part of the buildings demolished in June.

Message posted to http://thewallsofalex.blogspot.com. (Arabic).

El-Dessouki, M. A. 2012, August 3. Part of the buildings demolished in July.

Message posted to http://thewallsofalex.blogspot.com. (Arabic).

El-Dessouki, M. A. 2012, March 1. The Prime-Minister removes villa Cicurel from the heritage list. Message posted to http://thewallsofalex.blogspot.com. (Arabic).

119

El-Dessouki, M. A. 2012, April 30. Hotel Majestic. Message posted to http://thewallsofalex.blogspot.com. (Arabic).

El-Habashi, A.2001. Athar To Monuments: The Intervention Of The Comité De Conservation Des Monuments De L'Art Arabe (Unpublished doctoral thesis) University of Pennsylvania, Department of Architecture. USA. El-Habashi, A. 2009, August 28. Rescue Perret’s Legacy in Alexandria, Egypt.

Retrieved October 2013, from http://invisu.inha.fr.

El-Nokaly, A. & El-Seragy, A. 2013. Sustainable Heritage Development: Learning from Urban Conservation of Heritage Projects in Non-Western Contexts. European Journal of Sustainable Development, Vol.2, pp 31-54.

Empereur, J.Y. 1998. Alexandria Rediscovered. USA, George Braziller press.

Emerick, K., 2009. Archaeology and the cultural heritage management ‘toolkit’: the exampleof a community heritage project at Cawood, North Yorkshire. In:E. Waterton and L.Smith, eds.Taking archaeology out of heritage (91–116). Newcastle-uponTyne. CambridgeScholars Press.

Falaki, M. 1966. Ancient Alexandria. Alexandria, Al-Thakafa publishing house.

(Arabic) From Abou Kir to Cairo Station. 2007, February-April. Alex-Med newsletter. Issue 6.

Forster. E.M. 2004. Alexandria: a history and a guide. Cairo, The American Cairo press.

Fox, C. 2007. The evolution of heritage conservation planning in theory and practice: A case study of Victoria, British Columbia (Master‟s Thesis), The university of British Columbia, Faculty of graduate studies, Vancouver, Canada.

Ghanem, I. A.1998. Awqaf and Politics in Egypt. Cairo. Dar Al-Shorouk. (Arabic) GOPP-General organization for physical planning. 2013. About the organization.

Retrieved November 2013, from: http://www.gopp.gov.eg.

Grazuleviciute-Vileniske, I., Janilionis, V., Guscinskiene, J. & Azukaite, L. 2011.

Contingent valuation of built heritage properties in a transition country: a case of Lithuania/Nekilnojamojo kulturos paveldo vertinimas taikant numatomojo vertinimo metoda pereinamojo laikotarpio valstybeje: lietuvos atvejis. International Journal of Strategic Property Management.Vol. 15(4). pp 393-415 Graham,B., Ashworth, G.J., & Tunbridge, J.E. 2000. A Geography of Heritage: Power, Culture and Economy. London, UK. Arnold press.

Graham, B. 2001. Heritage as knowledge: capital or culture. Journal of Urban Studies, Vol. 39, pp 1003–1017, Graham, B. Howard, P. (Eds). 2008. Heritage and Identity. UK. Ashgate 120

Haag, M. 2008. Vintage Alexandria. Cairo, The American Cairo press.

Haag, M. 2009. Egypt. USA, Interlink Pub Group.

Hanna, M. 2012, August 13. The destruction of Alexandria. Message posted to http://mostanqa3at.blogspot.com. (Arabic).

Hatoum, N, 2013. The failure of Infitah policy in Egypt. Retrieved October 2013, from: https://www.academia.edu/1783815/Infitah_Policy_in_Egypt.

Heritage Branch, Office of Environment and Heritage. 2011. Heritage information series- community based heritage studies: a guide, Parramatta, New Zealand.

Ibrahim, N. 2013, April 25. The disaster of the demolition of ottoman heritage buildings due to security break-down. Retrieved October 2013, from http://alexnews.wordpress.com. (Arabic).

Jokilehto, J. 1986. A History of Architectural Conservation: The Contribution of English, French, German and Italian Thoughts Towards an International Approach to the Conservation of Cultural Property (Unpublished doctoral Thesis). Institute of Advanced Architectural Studies, University of York. York, UK. Jewachinda, M. 2004. Architectural heritage and polity making : a cultural policy of the European community 1970s-1990s (Doctoral Thesis). European University Institute. Department of History and Civilization. Florence, Italy.

Kadry, M. 2006. Qanoon Al-Adl wal-Insaf lel-Qadaa’ Ala Moshkelat Al-Awqaf. Cairo.

Al-Salam publishing house. (Arabic).

Khirfan, L. 2010. From documentation to policy-making: management of built heritage in Old Aleppo and Old Acre. Traditional Dwellings and Settlements Review, Vol. 21(2), pp 35-54.

Klein, B. 2006. Cultural Heritage, the Swedish Folklife Sphere, and the Others.

Cultural Analysis, Vol. 5(1). pp 57–80.

Knox, P.L. 2011. Cities and design. London. Routledge.

Komoot, A. 2012. Culture Assimilation: Integration of traditional practices into formal heritage laws as a potential way of heritage protection (Master‟s Thesis), University of Leiden, Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden, the Netherlands.

Kuutma, Kristin. 2012. Communities and the Contested Politics of Representational Ownership. In: Final Report: The First ICH-Researchers Forum: The Implementation of UNESCO's 2003 Convention, the Maison des Cultures du Monde, Paris, France, 3 June 2012th Osaka, Japan: International Research Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia-Pacific Region (IRC), 2012, pp 42 - 51 Larkham, P.J.1996. Conservation and the city. London. Routledge.

121

Labbé, D. 2010. Facing the urban transition in Hanoi: recent urban planning issues and initiatives. Quebec City, Canada. Institut National de la Recherche ScientifiqueUrbanisation Centre de Documentation.

Lowenthal, D. 2000. Stewarding the past in a perplexing present, In E. Avrami and R. Mason (Eds.), Value & Heritage Conservation Research Report, The Getty Conservation Institute (18- 25). Los Angeles, USA. The J. Paul Getty Trust.

Mahgoub, M., Hussein, E., Kadous, L. A., Wahab, D., Daoud, M. Elsheikh and M. Omran. 2000. The History and Civilization of Alexandria across the Ages.

Alexandria, The Alexandria Regional Authority for Tourism Promotion.

Maharjan, M. 2012. Conflict in world heritage sites of Kathmandu Valley: A case study on the conservation of private houses in three Durbar squares. Nepal Tourism and Development Review. Vol. 2 (1), pp 87-104.

Mansel, P. 2012, December. The Rise and Fall of Royal Alexandria: From Mohammed Ali to Farouk. The Court Historian. Vol. 17 (2). Retrieved October 2013, from: http://www.levantineheritage.com.

Mason, R. 2004. Fixing historic preservation: a constructive critique of “significance”.

Places. Vol. 16(1). pp. 64-71.

McKenzie,J. 2007. The Architecture of Alexandria and Egypt, 300 B.C. - A.D. 700.

London, Yale University Press.

Miller, K. 2005, December. The Ambron villa. Egypt Today.

MIT. 2005. Alexandria historical analysis. Retrieved from Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Course on case studies of city form. Website: http://ocw.mit.edu.

Mitchell, T. 2001. Making the nation: the politics of heritage in Egypt. In N. AlSayyad (ed) Consuming Tradition, Manufacturing Heritage: Global Norms and Urban Forms in the Age of Tourism (pp. 212-239). London: Routledge.

Mohamed, A., Ahmad, G. and Badarulzaman.N. 2000. Challenges of historic cities in the new millennium: Lesson from Malaysia. Unpublished conference paper.

Universiti Sains Malaysia.

NOUH-National organization for urban harmony , 2013. Grievances. Retrieved October 2013, from: http://www.urbanharmony.org.

Nour, H. 2012. Awqaf and Heritage: Urban Conservation in Historic Muslim CitiesThe Case of Waqf Institution in Historic Cairo (Doctoral Thesis), Politecnico di Milano, Faculty of Architecture and Society, Milano, Italy Pearce, S. 2000. The Making of Cultural Heritage, Value & Heritage Conservation Research Report, The Getty Conservation Institute, 59-64

122

Productivity Commission, 2006. Historic heritage value, pressures and emerging trends, Conservation of Australia’s Historic Heritage Places, Report No. 37, Canberra, Australia.

Rapport, P. 2011, November. Incentivising cultural built heritage through the NSW planning framework. EPA Act Review.

Redwine, B. 2008. The Melting Mirage of Lawrence Durrell's White City. Arion.

Vol.16(1). pp 19-46.

Rodwell, D. 2007. Conservation and sustainability in historic cities. Blackwell, UK. Blackwell Publishing.

Ross, M.1991. Planning and the Heritage: Policy and Procedures. UK. Taylor & Francis.

Saad, P.C. n.d. Alexandria On The Corniche, An Urban And Cultural Dialogue.

Retrieved November 2013, From: http://jftnewspaper.aub.edu.lb/reserve/data/sp10163/sp10163.pdf Savova,N. D. 2009. Heritage Kinaesthetics: Local Constructivism and UNESCO‟s Intangible-Tangible Politics at a Favela Museum. Anthropological Quarterly, Vol.82(2), pp 547- 573.

Serageldin, M. 2000. Preserving the Historic Urban Fabric in a Context of FastPaced Change, In E. Avrami and R. Mason (Eds.), Value & Heritage Conservation Research Report, The Getty Conservation Institute (51- 58). Los Angeles, USA. The J. Paul Getty Trust.

Shehayeb,D.K & Sedky, A. 2002. Heritage protection … Against what? A model to explain adverse change in historic districts. 1st International Conference of the WPAHR-V titled Architecture & Heritage within the Paradigm of Knowledge and Development, Alexandria, Egypt, 2-4 March 2002.

Shehayeb,D.K. & Abdelhalim, K.M.,2012, Issues of participation in Egypt. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, Vol.29(1), pp.45-64.

Shechter, R. 2009. From effendi to infit? Consumerism and Its Malcontents in the Emergence of Egyptian Market Society, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, Vol.36(1),pp 21-35.

Smith, A. 1991. National Identity. Harmondsworth, Penguin Spencer, R. 2013, September 15. Villa that inspired Lawrence Durrell faces demolition, as Egypt allows heritage to crumble. The Telegraph. Retrieved October 2013. From http://www.telegraph.co.uk Steinberg, F. 1996. Conservation and rehabilitation of urban heritage in developing countries, HABITAT ITEL 463-73.

123

Swoboda, H. & Weirsma, J.M.(Eds). 2009. Politics of the Past: The Use and Abuse of History. Belgium. Antilope.

Taylor, N.1998. Urban Planning Theory since 1945. UK. SAGE Publications Ltd. Waterton, E. & Smith, L. 2011. The recognition and misrecognition of community heritage, In Emma,W & Steve.W (Ed) Heritage and community development: collaboration or contestation, London, United Kingdom, Routledge.

Watson, S. & Waterton, E. 2011. Heritage and community engagement: finding a new agenda, In Emma,W & Steve.W (Ed) Heritage and community development: collaboration or contestation, London, United Kingdom, Routledge Weiss,L. 2007. Heritage making and political identity. Journal of Social Archaeology, Vol.7(3), pp.413-431 Younes.N.F, 2010, The Evolution of Birkat al-Fil : from the Fatimids to the Twentieth Century (Masterâ€&#x;s Thesis), American university in Cairo, Dept. of Arab and Islamic Civilizations, Cairo, Egypt.

-. 2012, April 21. Support the banning of the demolition of the Greek club and the city’s heritage characteristics. Message posted in http://sotorkotebtbma2.blogspot.com.

124