<http://www.w3.org/2009/08/skos-reference/skos.html#note>
"EVOLUTION AND MEMORY IN A HERITAGE LANDSCAPE by ANN-MARIE JACKSON B.A., Simon Fraser University, 2002 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQURJEMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA April 2006 \u00A9 Ann-Marie Jackson, 2006 Abstract Heritage preservation has become a major industry and pastime in North America and Europe. While the preservation movement has traditionally focussed on architectural structures, in recent decades heritage landscapes have been recognized for the wealth of historical, cultural, economic, educational, and ecological information about both the past and the present that they contain. Time and change are critical aspects of the landscape, but tend to be addressed inadequately in heritage landscape preservation practice and guidelines. This is demonstrated by the two disparate approaches, scientific and situated, to heritage landscapes in the field of landscape architecture. This thesis examines the origins, motivations, benefits, issues, and existing Canadian and US guidelines for the preservation of heritage landscapes, and concludes that an approach that emphasizes memory and evolution of the landscape over static guidelines will create more robust and meaningful places. 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ii Table of Contents iiList of Figures v List of Tables vi Chapter 1: Project Overview and Context 1 1.1 Introduction 2 Statement of Intent 3 Project GoalObjectives1.2. Context and Literature Review 4 Early landscape preservation activitiesBringing the past to the present: motivations, attitudes, and issues 5 Heritage Landscape Types and Guidelines in Canada and the United States 8 The Interpretation Philosophy 12 1.3 Case Studies 15 Pio Pico State Historic Park: Evolving Restoration 16 Wanuskewin Heritage Park: Scientific Methods and Layered Time 21 Landschaftspark Duisburg-Nord: Evolving Interpretation 25 Trappist Monastery Provincial Heritage Park: Layered Interpretation 30 Discovery Park 500 Area: Transformation 34 Case Study Conclusions 37 Chapter 2: The Site - Fraser River Heritage Park 39 2.1 Physical Context 40 2.2 Historical Context 44 2.4 Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Challenges 50 Chapter 3: Design and Programming 54 3.1 Concept 55 3.2 Community Context3.3 Site Design and Programming 62 Organization 62 CirculationMaterials 5 Major Spaces and Design Interventions 6Design Principle Summary 8Chapter 4: Concluding Remarks 91 Bibliography , 92 in List of Figures Figure 1: Pio Pico State Park 17 Figure 2: Pio Pico Plan 8 Figure 3: Wanuskewin Interpretive Centre 22 Figure 4: Wanuskewin Heritage Park Plan 3 Figure 5: Landschaftspark Duisburg-Nord Map 6 Figure 6: Railway Paths and Naturalized Vegetation 27 Figure 7: Cowperplatz 2Figure 8: Piazza Metallica Theatre Performance 8 Figure 9: Original Trappist Monastery Buildings, Early 1900s 30 Figure 10: Chapel Ruins, 2005 31 Figure 11: Location of Trappist Monastery Provincial Heritage Park 32 Figure 12: Army Barrack Footprints, Discovery Park 500 Area 35 Figure 13: View to the Southeast 40 Figure 14: Westminster AbbeyFigure 15: View of the Fraser Valley from Westminster Abbey 41 Figure 16: Oblates of Mary Immaculate Cemetery 4Figure 17: Forest TrailFigure 18: District of Mission Context 42 Figure 19: Fraser River Heritage Park and Context in the District of Mission 43 Figure 20: Orchard Work 44 Figure 21: Residential School StudentsFigure 22: Restored Grotto of Our Lady of Lourdes, Looking North 45 Figure 23: Foundations and Buildings, 2006 4Figure 24: St. Mary's Residential School, Circa 1930 46 Figure 25: Twilight Concert 4Figure 26: Mission Folk Music FestivalFigure 27: Chapel Foundation 7 Figure 28: Foundation with TroughFigure 29: Site Analysis Diagrams 48 Figure 30: Selected Existing Programs 9 Figure 31: Two Building Foundation Treatments 50 Figure 32: Looking North to Park from Info CentreFigure 33: Housing Development Relationship to Park 1 Figure 34: Parking Lot, Looking South from Mary Rd 5Figure 35: Norma Kenney House with Cafe and Caretaker's Suite 52 Figure 36: Old Orchard - Fruit, Nut, and Alder TreesFigure 37: Alder Walk 53 Figure 38: Park Adjacencies.. 7 Figure 39: Site Plan 9 Figure 40: Section-Elevation A - Entry Grove to Festival Field 3 60 Figure 41: Section-Elevation B - Shrine to River 61 Figure 42: Circulation Hierarchy 63 iv Figure 43: Trail Types 64 Figure 44: Major Program Areas 66 Figure 45: Reservoir Weir and Bridge Plan 69 Figure 46: Reservoir Weir and Bridge Perspective 6Figure 47: Amphitheatre 70 Figure 48: Works Yard Plan 4 Figure 49: Section-Elevation C - Works Yard Entry 75 Figure 50: Section-Elevation D - Works Yard with View to Fraser River 76 Figure 51: Works Yard Entry Bridge and Trough Detail 7 Figure 52: Trough Water Feature Terminus 78 Figure 53: Blackberry Deck 80 Figure 54: Lookout and Alder Allee... 81 Figure 55: Lookout 2 Figure 56: Pilgrimage and Funeral Procession Route 84 Figure 57: Design Principle - Memory 7 Figure 58: Design Principle - Layered Time 88 Figure 59: Design Principle - Evolution 9 Figure 60: Design Principle - Transformation and Interpretation 90 v List of Tables Table 1: A comparison of U.S. and Canadian Landscape Types 10 Table 2: A Comparison of U.S. and Canadian Landscape Treatments 1Table 3: Preservation and Interpretation Philosophies in Heritage Landscape Preservation. 13 Table 4: Pio Pico Design Principles 2Table 5: Wanuskewin Design Principles 4 Table 6: Duisburg-Nord Design Principles 9 Table 7: Trappist Monastery Park Design Principles 33 Table 8: Discovery Park 500 Area Design Principles 6 Table 9: Existing Park Programs 4Table 10: Major Programs and Design Interventions 67 vi Chapter 1: Project Overview and Context 1.1 Introduction Preservation has become the primary way of dealing with history. The demand for heritage structures and experiences in North America is astonishing; lacking sufficient numbers of heritage buildings to preserve or restore, we have begun to design new ones to appear old, and where we lack history we have been known to invent or embellish. In the United States, heritage tourism has become a powerful component of the economy, replacing agriculture and industry in many parts of the country as the primary income generator. In 1990, the National Trust for Heritage Preservation estimated that half of the country's $344 billion tourism industry was heritage based (Francaviglia 2000). For this reason, it is important to be critical of the kinds of heritage experiences that we are creating, and asking questions about their authenticity and the kinds of messages that they convey. Much of the work done in the area of historic and heritage preservation has focussed on architecture, largely ignoring the physical landscape and some of the important ideas of layout, adjacencies, sequence, and context employed in landscape architecture. This is unfortunate because, apart from the wealth of cultural information present in landscapes, landscapes can inform architecture- and artefact-focussed heritage projects in valuable ways (Paterson &amp; Colby, 1989). Heritage landscapes \"reveal much about our evolving relationship with the natural world\" (Birnbaum 1992, p. 42), and a hands-off approach to heritage preservation prevents their appreciation and use. The process by which landscapes are formed, used, and understood is important, and in this way \".. .heritage landscapes are important indicators of the restless search for.. .identity\" (Francaviglia 2000, p. 69). Heritage tells us as much about the past as it does about the present because we interpret it in ways that are meaningful to us now. Each landscape has historical, cultural, aesthetic, economic, social, educational, and ecological layers, but often by trying to freeze a landscape in time we are unable to represent more than one or two of these. 2 Statement of Intent Heritage is a vital part of everyday life, giving meaning to individuals, groups, and the landscapes they inhabit and visit. Yet the proliferation of museum- and monument-oriented approaches to history and heritage in the landscape prevents multiple ways of experiencing them, and often inhibits the development of new interpretations and activities that can add layers of meaning and, in turn, contribute to the future heritage of the site. This thesis explores the evolution of the heritage landscape preservation movement in North America and suggests that the current practice of using heritage guidelines to preserve landscapes tends to neglect the effects of time and memory. The proposal that an exploratory and evolutionary approach to heritage landscape preservation can create meaningful and genuine places is explored in the design of a master plan for Fraser River Heritage Park in Mission, British Columbia. Project Goal To incorporate the concepts of time and memory into the landscape. Objectives 1. to understand the evolution of heritage landscape preservation activities in North America. 2. to assess the efficacy of existing North American heritage landscape guidelines to incorporate the concepts of time and memory into heritage landscapes. 3. to explore the design possibilities for revealing site and community heritage in a regional park with multiple uses. 4. to create a master plan for Fraser River Heritage Park that embodies notions of memory, change, and culture and enhances the ongoing evolution of the site. 3 1.2. Context and Literature Review Early landscape preservation activities We undertake a wealth of heritage exploration and preservation activities today, but the scope and purpose of these activities are relatively recent phenomena. Whatever our view of the past - a set of unique and novel stories and items, outmoded and stale ideas, a collection of valuable lessons, or a source of pride and importance - most agree on one thing: the past is complete, an entity entirely separate from the present. However, this differentiation of past from present did not occur in European cultures throughout much of history; according to Lowenthal (1985), until the 18th century, the present was considered a continuation of the past, and past events were referred to as though they were still occurring. The past was not considered foreign or different. Human nature was assumed to have remained constant, and the relationship between past and present was seen to be a natural unfolding of history. By the late 18th century, Europeans began to perceive a past filled with unique histories and personalities, and the past gradually became heritage, a concept that both validated the present and served as a source of curiosity and pride. This ability to recognize the difference of the past \".. .promoted its preservation... [and] the act of preserving made that difference still more apparent\" (Lowenthal 1985, p. xvii). Why this new perception of the past arose is uncertain. Lynch (1972) notes that in medieval times, older landscapes and structures were not valued for their historic importance; if they were valued, it was for their contemporary use. Yet by the 16th century Western Europeans had begun to display an \"esoteric attraction\" (p. 29) to old structures, starting the fashion of placing follies and ruins in the landscape which by the Romantic period had become a popular upper-class style. The first preservation efforts in the United States occurred in the 18th and 19th centuries, and focussed on preserving structures associated with patriotic figures as a way of encouraging national solidarity and pride, preventing disunity, and Americanizing immigrants by presenting them with 'their heritage.' These motives were soon joined with resurgence in enthusiasm for romantic ruins and, eventually, with a range of archaeological, curatorial, economic, touristic, and memorial concerns (Lynch 1972; Mason 2003). 4 However, these efforts remained largely concerned with architecture and architectural features. By the early 20th century the landscape was finally receiving attention from the preservationist movement. One of the earliest examples, the Rockefeller-funded restorations of the 1920s and 1930s at Colonial Williamsburg, Virginia, focussed primarily on architectural structures, but included many gardens and plantings surrounding these buildings. While many geographers and landscape architects studied the cultural landscape and cultural landscape preservation throughout the 20th century, it was not until the 1970s and 1980s that the landscape officially entered the preservation agenda in North America. In the early 1970s, the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA) formed a historic preservation committee, and the Association for Preservation Technology (APT) also began to address the landscape and related issues around this time. In 1984, the National Park Service (NPS) provided major direction to the landscape preservation movement with its publication of Cultural Landscapes: Rural Historic Districts in the National Park System. This report provided criteria for the identification and treatment of cultural landscapes, and has since been followed by a wealth of intellectual and practical materials on the subject of historic landscape preservation (Alanen and Melnick, 2000). While still not as prevalent as architectural preservation, the landscape has firmly established itself in the preservation dialogue. Bringing the past to the present: motivations, attitudes, and issues There are several theories that address the contemporary North American and European obsession with heritage preservation. In a world of rapid physical and cultural change, Lynch (1972) suggests that we are driven to embrace that which is familiar and secure. Others propose that the urge to preserve is a reaction to economic and ideological transition, a \"reaction to anxieties generated by modernist amnesia\" (Lowenthal 1985, p. xvii) or a reminder \".. .of what we cherish - and have lost - in our transition from an agricultural and industrial country to a service economy\" (Francaviglia 2000, p. 68). Or, perhaps we are too removed from the past to be able to incorporate or creatively modify it into contemporary works; not being able to rework, we are left with the options of destruction or preservation (Lowenthal 1985). 5 We preserve physical structures and landscapes not for their intrinsic value but for the memories of the past and feelings that they evoke, many of which have been eloquently elaborated by Lowenthal (1985). The past validates or condemns the present by allowing us to measure progress and purpose; it is very common to hear ruminations on how much better things are today than they were in the past or, conversely, how much better things were 20 or perhaps 50 years ago. The past also provides, often much more than do contemporary acts, personal and cultural identity. European settlers brought with them to North America a grab bag of names, furnishings, and customs that were liberally applied to natural and human landscapes alike in order to claim a foreign place but also to remind them of their identities and pasts. Preservation is frequently undertaken with instructive intentions. Physical remnants of the past, it is hoped, will serve as reminders of how things might best be done, or how they should never be done again. Often, souvenirs of the past enrich the present or provide escape from it (Lowenthal 1985). The sensory richness of certain artefacts makes the memories and feelings of which they are associated much stronger; physical reminders of the past give a sense of time and longevity. Kaplan et. al.'s (1998) concept of 'being away,' a property of the restorative environment, can be extended through space into time. Just as one does not necessarily need to be immersed in a natural landscape to experience its relaxing and restorative effects, but can instead benefit from simply viewing it from a window, one can remain in the present while mentally escaping to the past; witness the tremendous number of hobbies and recreational activities that involve temporal escapism, such as antique collecting, visiting museums and historic sites, and events that re-enact historical events or periods. Yet for all its benefits, preservation attitudes and activities have left a bad taste in many mouths. The complexity of historic events and landscapes, the subjectivity of human nature, and the effects of time, leave room for reinterpretation and selectivity. Whether deliberate or unintentional, this rewriting of history is problematic in many preservation efforts; most early preservation efforts in North America deliberately attempted to restore one 'correct' history, a history agreeable to the restorer, a practice that Alanen and Melnick (2000) have termed \"landscape scrubbing\" (p. 7). Although increasingly an endeavour of volunteers and non-profit groups, for a long time preservation was an activity of the middle and upper classes (Lowenthal 1985), and was thus a medium for their values and 6 interpretations. In the case of Colonial Williamsburg, the restorations of the 1920s and 1930s celebrated the hard-working pioneer spirit of the European settlers, but dismissed the existence and significance of the African American gardens and living quarters on the site and the entire culture of slavery and oppression that went along with them. It was not until the 1970s and 1980s that this more difficult aspect of Williamsburg's history was recognized and made part of the site's presentation of colonial identity. In fact, Huxtable (1992) sources the failures of the contemporary preservation movement in the Williamsburg restorations. Not only do false histories misguide, they \"deny future generations opportunities for new discoveries and interpretations\" (Alanen and Melnick 2000, p. 7). The North American obsession with preservation and the resultant acceleration of preservation activities has created confusion as to what exactly is being preserved and why. Heritage has become a consumable item, compellingly summarized in Francaviglia's (2000) statement that, in the United States, \"heritage landscapes are sold, but the price is often a complete reinterpretation of the past\" (p. 68). These reinterpretations generally preserve the images (and their associated values) that are most acceptable to North American culture, and therefore the most consumable, and this is why heritage landscapes that show poverty or banality are far and few between - they are not marketable. Indeed, when we do address shameful or painful aspects of our heritage, we present it in such a way that implies we have learned from our mistakes and have matured in our approaches. Increasingly marketable are \"imagineered heritage landscapes\" (Francaviglia 2000), those landscapes that are designed to appear historic, such as Seaside, Florida or Disney's Main Street USA, and often provide more entertainment than instructional value. Francaviglia concludes that, ultimately, the majority of heritage landscape preservation ventures, both commercial and educational, serve primarily to encourage us to consume and perpetuate more heritage landscapes. The more we consume heritage items, the more of them we need to be satisfied. The more heritage we preserve, the more commonplace it becomes, until 'pastness' becomes an idea that has no real efficacy in connecting the past to the present; as Lowenthal (1985) puts it, \"we expand our sense of the contemporary at the expense of realizing its connection with the past\" (p. xvii). He states that while preservation efforts have increased our knowledge of the past more than any other period in history, this has occurred at the expense of our understanding of this past. Clearly, motives and methods must be carefully examined when 7 approaching a heritage project, bringing to mind the concept of integrity, a measurement often cited in preservation guidelines; integrity should speak not only of the state of the site itself, but of the interpretation of the site's history (Howett 2000). Finally, the issue of time in heritage landscape preservation activities is critical. Treib (1999) insists that \"time is the crucial dimension of landscape\" (p. 37), and that landscapes that deny this are bland and deficient in meaning, since meaning accumulates over time (2002). Nevertheless, landscape preservation movements in Europe and North America have generally sought to arrest change (Lowenthal, 1985) rather than accommodate natural processes. Alanen and Melnick (2000) point out that the concept of heritage landscape preservation is in fact an oxymoron; since landscapes are composed of natural elements that grow, die, and erode over time, it is not truly possible to preserve them at any stage or period. Because the sheer immensity of the past, our inability to verify past events and motivations, and our own subjectivity prevent us from ever really knowing the past (and thus preserving or recreating it) (Lowenthal 1985), Howett (2000) suggests that the term 'landscape preservation' might better be replaced with 'landscape interpretation.' Indeed, preservation activities concerning both architecture and the landscape have largely favoured the physical remnants of history over its memory, meaning, and wonder (Hayer 1999, Howett 2000, Mason 2003). This is largely due to the prevalence of scientific methods their ultimate standard of objectivity, which is in turn driven by the fear of presenting false histories. This is problematic because, by preserving the physical dimensions of a landscape or building, we are assuming that these items will always have the same meaning over time, and are often denying multiple and alternative meanings and values. Physical remnants, as J.B. Jackson (1980) taught us, are not static but part of an ongoing process, a necessary cycle; the dissolution into ruins provokes memory and provides incentive for restoration. Why preserve the physical elements of history if we have forgotten why we wanted to preserve them in the first place? Heritage Landscape Types and Guidelines in Canada and the United States The National Parks Service's (NPS) (1996) The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes presents guidance on the principles and practices of the treatment of heritage 8 landscapes. It provides guidance on a) performing historical research for a site, including the inventory and documentation of existing conditions and methods for site analysis; b) determining a preservation approach and treatment plan; and c) the development of an implementation strategy and ongoing maintenance plan. In order to aid in the choosing of a preservation approach, four landscape types are identified: Historic designed landscape: a landscape consciously designed by a landscape architect or master gardener that is associated with a trend, event, or person in the field of landscape architecture, or illustrates an important development in the theory and practice of landscape architecture. Historic vernacular landscape: a landscape that has evolved through use by the people whose activities or occupancy shaped the landscape; includes the physical, biological, or cultural character of everyday lives. Historic site: a landscape associated with a historic event, activity, or person. Ethnographic landscape: a landscape containing a variety of natural and cultural resources that associated people define as heritage resources. To inform the development of a treatment plan, four treatment types are identified: Preservation: the protection, maintenance, or stabilization of existing form, integrity, and materials without extensive replacement or new construction. Rehabilitation: making possible compatible contemporary uses through repair, alterations, or additions. Restoration: the removal of newer features and restoration of the form, features, and character of a particular period of history. Reconstruction: the depiction of the form, features, and details of a non-surviving landscape at a specific period of time. Guidelines for the application of these treatments to each landscape type are presented in a 'recommended' and 'not recommended' format. Parks Canada's (2003) Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada was developed from those of the NPS, and similarly identifies both 9 landscape types (see table 1) and treatment types (see table 2). However, the Parks Canada landscape types differ in that they defined by their physical qualities and elements as opposed to their uses and development, and their definitions are not as successful at considering relationships since they favour neatly defined landscape features. Like those of the NPS, the Parks Canada general standards apply to all landscape types and projects, while the guidelines are intended to assist in applying the standards to specific landscape types and treatments. However, for the most part the Parks Canada guidelines are identical for all landscape types. Similar to the NPS, the guidelines are presented in a 'recommended' and 'not recommended' format. National Park Service (1996) Parks Canada (2003) Historic designed landscapes Land patterns Historic vernacular landscapes Landforms Historic site Spatial organization Ethnographic landscape Vegetation Viewscapes Circulation Water features Built features Table 1: A comparison of U.S. and Canadian Landscape Types National Park Service Preservation Rehabilitation Restoration Reconstruction Parks Canada (2003) Preservation Rehabilitation Restoration Francaviglia (2000) Passive preservation Active preservation Restoration Assembly Imagineering Imagically preserving Table 2: A Comparison of U.S. and Canadian Landscape Treatments The primary criticism of the NPS Standards and Guidelines (and, by association, those of Parks Canada) is their ineffectiveness on accommodating evolution over time 10 (Howett 2000), In adopting the scientific motives of archaeology, the preservation movement in general has restricted the representation of the continuous evolution of the landscape, a fact that has not gone unnoticed by the NPS. Charles Birnbaum, an author of the NPS Standards and Guidelines, has recognized that greater effort should be focussed on the dynamic qualities of the landscape, rather than devoting all energy toward restoration or reconstruction that may or may not be historically accurate (Francaviglia 2000). In fact, the NPS acknowledged the restrictive nature of the requirement for defining acceptable time periods in heritage preservation by expanding its own definition of'period of significance' in 1990. However, this attempt to recognize the evolutionary nature of the historic landscape was a questionable success (Howett 2000); the problem remains of the 'recommended' and 'not recommended' approach, which is limiting because it favours a restriction of options rather than an expansion of them, \"[inhibiting] the development of new and better ways of recovering the past as a visible and meaningful presence in the lives of people today\" (Howett 2000, p. 207). The standards and guidelines also tend to oversimplify the range of treatment types and their motivations. Francaviglia (2000) has identified additional treatment types to describe North American landscapes (see table 2) that are perhaps more honest about the motives of contemporary landscape preservation activities. Notably, these include the assembled, imagineered, and imagically preserved heritage landscapes. Assembled heritage landscapes are roughly equivalent to the NPS definition of reconstruction, where desirable historical features are imported from other locations or newly constructed to appear historical. The motive of the assembled landscape is primarily educational, as in Stonefield Village, Wisconsin, and is almost always an idealized presentation of the past. Imagineered heritage landscapes are also created in the present but designed to appear historical. The difference is that imagineered landscapes reflect essence rather than reality, as in the case of Seaside, Florida, which illustrates the desirable qualities of small-town intimacy. These composites of romantic, pleasant, and saleable images of the past could be, and are, anywhere, almost always serving entertainment, commercial, or residential purposes. Finally, imagically preserved landscapes complete the evolution of place to image in the form of models or images that recreate vanished landscapes. The idea is not new; for 11 decades, museums have presented dioramas and models of pioneer villages and First Nations sites for their educational and touristic values. While they can appear very realistic, imagically preserved landcapes distance the viewer by presenting the landscape as scenery, and completely freeze it in time. Ultimately, what these standards, guidelines, and definitions show is that contemporary heritage landscape preservation approaches are concerned only with the physical manifestations of heritage and history, largely ignoring how these physical elements have shaped and can reshape memory and experience (Mason, 2003). They tell us little of processes that continue to operate in the landscape. Most critics recognize that good design comes from debate and discovery, not from the so-called objectivity of restrictions and guidelines (Howett 2000, Ftoyer 1999, Lynch 1972). This demonstrates a divide in current heritage landscape preservation attitudes and practice, a divide between scientific and creative methods that is unfortunately rarely bridged. Landscapes such as Williamsburg, Virginia and Mission San Jose, Texas that freeze the landscape in time have usually undergone meticulous and careful design using a set of guidelines or preservation principles, while landscapes such as Duisburg-Nord Park, Germany celebrate the creative synthesis of industrial heritage, environmental change, and cultural programming, embracing the idea of landscape-as-palimpsest. I have termed these two philosophies the preservation philosophy and the interpretation philosophy. These two philosophies, recognized explicitly or implicitly in the heritage landscape preservation literature, are summarized in table 3. The Interpretation Philosophy Although the idea of synthesis and evolution in the heritage landscape is not new -Lynch (1972) praised a blending of physical items and design from both the past and the present where \"the old environment is seen as an opportunity for dramatic enhancement and becomes richer than it was\" (p. 39) - it nevertheless continues to garner less respect than its science-based counterpart that, in focussing only on the accurate depiction of the past, denies the influence of the present. While standards and guidelines are valuable for the guidance they provide on the physical components of heritage sites, all heritage preservation projects 12 would do well to incorporate the concepts of time and memory found in the interpretation philosophy of design. Preservation philosophy Interpretation philosophy Reference Project emphasis Fabric/physical artefacts Memory Mason 2003 View of time Linear Layered Girot 1999; Howett 2000; Treib 1999; Lynch 1972 View of landscape Static Evolving Hoyer 1999; Treib 1999; Lowenthal 1985 View of the past/history Objective Subjective Lowenthal 1985 Method Scientific Debate &amp; discovery Hoyer 1999; Howett 2000 Intent Preservation or restoration Transformation, interpretation Hoyer 1999; Howett 2000; Lynch 1972 Product/tool Guidelines Site-specific process and understanding Mason 2003 Table 3: Preservation and Interpretation Philosophies in Heritage Landscape Preservation The principles of the interpretation philosophy are closely linked. By emphasizing the physical artefacts, or fabric, of the heritage landscape, often the memory and meaning is neglected. This is closely related to the concept of layered time; by freezing a set of physical artefacts in a certain period of time, often only one layer or story is revealed. By showing layers of time periods and influences, a greater understanding of the landscape is possible, as well as the recognition of the evolving state of the landscape which allows a greater flexibility in accommodating future uses. Likewise, the scientific methods (such as restoration and remote sensing) frequently employed in heritage landscape preservation activities often focus on visible, measurable, or physical things, and often have a certain authority or factual nature that makes it seem as if the single, most correct preservation activity has been achieved. This usually denies the rich debate and understanding that can occur when designers, planners, and community members discuss the importance and interpretations of a certain heritage landscape. When the intent is to preserve a heritage landscape, a considerable amount of effort is required to halt further environmental and 13 cultural change. Allowing the site to transform and respond to changing needs and interpretations often results in a greater appreciation and understanding than when a set of guidelines is followed and a generic product created. The following section presents several case studies that have been evaluated with these design principles in mind. The design principles proposed by the interpretation philosophy will then be applied to a site, Fraser River Heritage Park in Mission, British Columbia, to determine their value in guiding the meaningful design of a heritage landscape. 14 1.3 Case Studies The following five case studies, all parks, are examples of the range of heritage landscape preservation approaches. The first, Pio Pico State Historic Park, demonstrates an approach to heritage landscapes with which many will be familiar. Here, the goal was accurate restoration of the landscape and structures to a previous time period. The second, Wanuskewin Heritage Park, is also familiar in its goal of educating visitors on historic First Nations use of the site, although in this case the landscape is less managed or preserved. Instead, an interpretive centre provides information about the site's history, with the landscape itself less designed or programmed. Both landscapes demonstrate an archaeological approach where the landscape is studied and excavated (literally and figuratively) to understand historic use. The final three, Landschaftspark Duisburg-Nord, Trappist Monastery Provincial Heritage Park, and Discovery Park 500 Area employ less-conventional preservation techniques, focussing more on memory and evolution than on the ongoing preservation of physical heritage elements. Nevertheless, all three are somewhat different in their programming and amount of intervention in the final park design. Duisburg-Nord juxtaposes the notions of decay and renewal, providing a powerful sense of the passage of time and the briefness of human touch on the landscape. Trappist Monastery Park has preserved a heritage structure, but has preserved it in its time of decline and has reprogrammed the area for cultural events. Finally, the design for Discovery Park 500 Area remarks on the brevity of human activity, and is much less programmed as it strives for restoration, not of human heritage but of the original plant communities on the site. While these case studies show the differences of science- and design-based approaches to heritage landscapes, they also show the multiple ways that these methods can be used and combined, and their strengths, weaknesses, and assumptions. They reveal that understanding the 'why' of heritage landscape preservation is just as complicated as the 'how' and 'when.' Each has been evaluated using the preservation and interpretation philosophies (table 3) outlined previously. 15 Pio Pico State Historic Park: Evolving Restoration Location: Date Designed/Planned: Construction Completed: Size: Landscape Architects: Client/Developer: Whittier, California (a suburb of Los Angeles) 2000-2003 Sept. 2003 1.6 hectares (4 acres) Tony Bonascori, Karen Adams, Cleo Abrams, California State Parks California State Parks Context Pio Pico Park is located in eastern Los Angeles in urban Whittier. It is bounded by spawl-style development: gas stations, busy streets, and single-family homes. To the west of the site flows the San Gabriel River. An active ranch and homestead prior to the 1894, the landscape has undergone many biophysical and cultural changes over the past 200 years. Agricultural ventures changed from cattle to grains to fruits, interrupted periodically by river flooding, irrigation ditches, and earthquakes. While the site has been a state park since 1927, it has been constantly challenged by a lack of funding, earthquake damage, neglect, and conflicting restoration efforts. Project Background and History Pio Pico Park was originally part of an 8,891 acre property owned by the last governor of Mexican California, Pio de Jesus Pico IV. A prominent and colourful figure in the history of the Los Angeles area, Pico owned so much land that he called the property 'el ranchito' or 'little ranch.' He was one of the few dons that managed to retain his vast land holdings after the American takeover in the 1840s, continuing to amass his fortune by ranching during the gold rush, and later farming barley, oats, and grapes. He built a 20-room adobe 'mansion' on the property in 1853. In the last decade of his life, Pico's vast estate was methodically dismantled by title disputes, rising taxes, and dishonest lawyers. He died a pauper in the home of his daughter in 1894, at the age of 93. In 1907, a group of citizens led by Harriet Russell Strong 16 purchased the ruined adobe mansion and surrounding lands with the intention of creating a historic site. Repairs and restoration of the Pico home followed, with the property deeded to the State of California in 1917. In 1927, Pio Pico became one of California's first state historic parks, followed by various restoration projects (Sorvig, 2005; Friends of Pio Pico, 2005). El ranchito in the 1880s Restored el ranchito, 2003 School tour Restored wheat field Figure 1: Pio Pico State Park Source: Friends of Pio Pico Genesis of Project and Design By the 1990s, the site had become neglected. The California State Parks Department was interested in restoring the mansion, while the City of Whittier expressed a need for a community park. Eventually, a project evolved whose goal was to undertake an accurate historic landscape reconstruction and to provide for the needs of public park users. Given the numerous uses of the site over the past century, a major issue in its redesign was how to represent these histories in a way that would be clear to the visitor. Ultimately, an educational approach was chosen that showed how the site appeared and was 17 used between the 1840s and 1880s. A California State Parks archaeologist was brought on board and, with the use of tools such as ground-penetrating radar and proton magnetometers, located and dated buried elements in the landscape. Since these elements were primarily agricultural, the designers attempted to facilitate an understanding of the site's and the region's agricultural past (see figure 1). Historic orchards, gardens, grain fields, buried irrigation ditches and lost elements (such as a dovecote and outdoor oven) were restored, and cultivated areas gradually merge with newer public open spaces and picnic areas that fit closely the character of the restored ranchito (Sorvig, 2005). The Friends of Pio Pico support cultural and educational activities in the park through school and public tours, children's activities, adobe- and bread-making events, fiestas, and parades. Figure 2: Pio Pico Plan Source: Sorvig 2005 18 Significance and Uniqueness of Project Landscapes, unlike structures, are difficult to restore given their changing nature and the frequent lack of documentation. As Sorvig (2005) recognizes, the landscape is not static, with features growing, disappearing, or being modified; documentation often focuses on structures, people, and possessions. The team of landscape architects, architect, historian, and archaeologist focussed on accurate representation of the landscape during Pio Pico's life, an approach that assumed restoration was the correct response to the historic landscape. A particularly interesting feature of the most recent restoration is the public representation of the often conflicting ideas surrounding historic restoration and preservation. Prior to the recent work of the California State Parks team, the mansion had undergone two historical restorations. The first, in 1909, was a \"fantasy restoration\" that included false Mission-style additions to the structure. The second, in 1946, recreated the period when Pico was governor, a time prior before the mansion had even been built. The foundation plantings included species that were fashionable in the 1940s but would not have existed in the 1850s. These well-meaning but inaccurate restorations are documented in a series of photos on display in the adobe house. Yet we must ask: how well-meaning but inaccurate is.this most recent restoration? Scientific methods tell us that, physically, the restoration is reasonably accurate. The designers created smaller cultivated areas symbolic of the former expansive agricultural fields (see figure 2), orchards, and vineyards that, despite their changed scale, are realistic in their unirrigated and rough appearance. While it is valuable to be able to see how the landscape appeared, appearance and function are two very different things. This landscape makes no comment on the forces that caused both the success and the decline of Pio Pico, and is unemotional and proper in its presentation to visitors. Sorvig (2005) celebrates the Pio Pico restoration for its blend of design and science, suggesting that while designers may be experts at aesthetics and function, accuracy is often a weak point in design training. He further suggests that confusing messages in historic projects arise when the designer is compelled to contribute \"designerly\" touches. Here, Sorvig is buying into the idea that accuracy and creativity in heritage landscape projects are opposing approaches that must be mediated or combined, but is ignoring the more important 19 issue of intent. Certainly, designers often impose inappropriate or irrelevant values on the landscape, but the scientific approach erroneously believes it is value-free. Clearly, it values an attachment to the physical remnants of the past. One wonders if other possible transformations of the landscape were considered, perhaps a truly layered approach that would communicate the force and extent of the river floods, the experience of the servants and employees bathing in the irrigation ditches under the willow trees, or the atmosphere of desperation on a declining ranch. Much of this cannot be known with the accuracy required by a scientific approach, but this should not prevent evocative traces in the landscape that provoke the visitor's imagination or curiosity. As with so many heritage landscapes, the layers at Pio Pico have been peeled back and removed until a desired heritage was found, an action that hides much in its simple presentation of history. Preservation philosophy Interpretation philosophy Project emphasis Fabric/physical artefacts \u2022 Memory View of time Linear \u2022 Layered View of landscape Static Evolving \u2022 View of the past/history Objective \u2022 Subjective Method Scientific \u2022 Debate &amp; discovery Intent Preservation or restoration \u2022 Transformation, interpretation Product/tool Guidelines \u2022 Site-specific process and understanding Table 4: Pio Pico Design Principles 20 Wanuskewin Heritage Park: Scientific Methods and Layered Time Location: Date Designed/Planned: Construction Completed: Size: Landscape Architects: Client/Developer: Consultants/Architects: 3km north of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan 1986-1992 1992 240 hectares (600 acres) Crosby Hanna &amp; Associates Meewasin Valley Authority AldrichPears Associates, AODBT Architecture and Interior Design Context Wanuskewin Heritage Park, formerly known as the Tipperary Creek Conservation Area, has been an important archaeological area since the 1930s, representing over 5000 years of prehistoric and historic occupation. During this time, First Nations people came to Wanuskewin to hunt bison, gather food, and to worship. The extensive site contains valuable artefacts including a medicine wheel, tipi rings, a buffalo pound, bison jumps, processing areas, and habitation sites (Scott, 1986). The Meewasin Valley Authority, a conservation organization created in 1979 that is dedicated to protecting the natural and cultural heritage resources of the South Saskatchewan River Valley, purchased the land from the City of Saskatoon in 1982. It then commissioned a master plan in 1983 that lead to the site's declaration as a Provincial Heritage Property in 1984 and a National Historical Site in 1986. Project Background and Elements The original Tipperary Creek master plan divided the site into six zones, including development, transitional, natural, buffer, river, and interpretive. The interpretive zone was intended to represent the archaeological resources of the site, and included an interpretive centre providing panels, pamphlets, tours, archaeological digs, and programs (Scott, 1986). From the beginning, preservation and interpretation were the chosen approaches, with a focus on retaining a sense of the past in order to bring meaning in the present. An 21 interpretive centre (see figure 3) was preferred so that visitors could be directed to the landscape, instead of having a museum which would function as the destination itself (Scott, 1986). Figure 3: Wanuskewin Interpretive Centre Source: Wanuskewin Heritage Park Wanuskewin Heritage Park (figure 4), designed by Crosby Hanna &amp; Associates, opened in 1992 with the intention of showcasing archaeology and prehistoric Northern Plains Native culture. The objectives of the design project were to express, promote, and strengthen Northern Plains Indian culture; to encourage public education of prehistoric to present Native culture; to create a national and international tourist attraction; to increase employment and economic spin-offs for Native people in the area; to manage the natural and cultural resources of the site; to provide passive recreation opportunities; and, to celebrate the character of the site through the design (Crosby, 1992). A key planning and design move was the involvement of native elders. The Wanuskewin Heritage Park Authority continues to be run by both First Nations and non-First Nations people, and the park is actively programmed to showcase both historic and contemporary native culture. The primary elements of the design include the interpretive centre, nine kilometers of trails throughout the site, including interpretive stations and exhibits, and a sensitive approach to site development designed to preserve the unique features of the landscape. The interpretive centre includes an amphitheatre, archaeological library, conference centre, restaurant, and contemporary art gallery. Programs include wildlife- and archaeological-focussed tours, school programs, entertainment and tour 22 packages (including overnight tipi village experiences), dance performances, and storytelling. Figure 4: Wanuskewin Heritage Park Plan Source: Crosby Hanna and Associates Significance and Uniqueness of the Project The primary significance of Wanuskewin Heritage Park lies in its long history of human use, large size, natural beauty, and collaborative design and programming effort between First Nations, government, university, and community members. It is also significant that the Wanuskewin Heritage Park Authority plays an active role in attempting to demonstrate a history in progress. A national heritage site, Wanuskewin's preservation and use must follow a more scientifically rigorous treatment, yet it has expanded far beyond the museum-style treatment that often shapes the appearance and experience of heritage parks. The landscape itself is not just an attractive background, but a setting for the evolving history of the Northern Plains First Nations people, with programming that focuses on active archaeological research and 23 cultural education experiences. Within the park facilities, the focus is not only on presenting relics of the past, but on actively bringing the past into present and providing educational and entertainment value in the process. Nevertheless, the presentation of history at this site sometimes verges on consumable image; the only thing this site really tells us about contemporary Northern Plains First Nations culture is that they, and the Canadian nation, value their heritage; interaction with the people whose heritage is presented in this park is mostly limited to performance. Visitors are removed from activities and interactions that might provide insight into what it means to be a First Nations person in the 21st century. But maybe this goes beyond the scope of this landscape. Considering the park's ambitious mandate, which encompasses tourism, human resources development, education, cultural presentation, and scientific research (Wanuskewin Heritage Park 2005), these programs have, for the most part, been incorporated in a sensitive and tasteful manner. Preservation philosophy Interpretation philosophy Project emphasis Fabric/physical artefacts Memory \u2022 View of time Linear Layered \u2022 View of landscape Static Evolving \u2022 View of the past/history Objective \u2022 Subjective Method Scientific Debate &amp; discovery Intent Preservation or restoration Transformation, interpretation \u2022 Product/tool Guidelines Site-specific process and understanding \u2022 Table 5: Wanuskewin Design Principles 24 Landschaftspark Duisburg-Nord: Evolving Interpretation Location: Ruhr, Germany Date Designed/Planned: 1989/1990 Construction Completed: 2000 Size: 230 hectares (568 acres) Landscape Architects: Latz + Partner Client/Developer: Entwicklungsgesellschaft Nordrhein-Westfalen LEG GmbH (for the City of Duisburg, Parks and Planning Office) Context Landschaftspark Duisburg-Nord is located along the River Emscher in the Ruhr District of northwest Germany. This area was once one of the largest industrial regions in the world, producing coal and steel from the Middle Ages until the 20th century. The 230 hectares that now make up the Landschaftspark were home to a coal mine, established in 1899, a coking plant, established in 1905, and extensive structures associated with the steelworks owned by the company Friedrich Thyssen. By the 1980s, the site was highly contaminated and filled with the ruins of centuries of heavy industry. Its conversion to a park has become a model for the rebirth of obsolete industrial lands and a remarkable example of the evolutionary nature of natural and cultural landscapes. Project Background and History Economic change in the 1960s caused the decline of heavy industry in the Ruhr region. In 1959, the Thyssen 4/8 mine shaft was the first in region to be shut down; the coking plant was demolished in 1980 and the smelting works ceased production in 1985. Given the tremendous cost of demolition, most of the industrial structures remained on the site. As early as 1910, the idea of an integrated planning approach had been proposed to offset the degradation caused by the rapid industrial expansion and urban fragmentation in the region. Although plans were created in the 1960s to protect the remaining greenspace in the area, these plans did not become reality until the establishment of the Internationale Bauausstellung Emscher Park (IB A) in 1988. The objectives of the ten-year program included preserving the remaining landscape and to plan new uses for an economically and 25 socially weakened region; from the beginning, the importance of the region's industrial heritage as well as the importance of ecological restoration was recognized (Tate 2001). ' 1 Si \u2022 \u2022 mi Figure 5: Landschaftspark Duisburg-Nord Map Source: Landschaftspark Duisburg-Nord 2006 Genesis of Project and Design Almost immediately following the abandonment of the Duisburg-Nord site, its recreation potential became obvious as nearby residents found ways to use it; conservationists quickly recognized the value of the monumental steel works structures, local historians and naturalists organized tours, the Duisburg Alpine Club began practicing in the iron ore bunkers, and the diving club began practicing in the huge gasometer. The design of the Landschaftspark (see figure 5) became a major initiative of the IBA and was considered an important step in the creation of the larger Emscher Park system. Four major players helped initiate the creation of the park. The Land Development Association of the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia purchased large parts of the site from Thyssen and rail company, with the Ruhr Real Estate Fund providing financial support. The City of Duisburg then rezoned the land as open/park space. Much of the money for the 26 actual design and construction of the park came from economic restructuring aid obtained by the Reinhausen miners (Diedrich 2002). In 1990, experts were consulted on ground and water pollution, followed shortly by the announcement of a design competition. Peter Latz + Partner submitted the winning entry, which focussed on the value of everyday nature and the process of industrial decay. Thyssen had sold the derelict site to the City of Duisburg without performing any cleanup or restoration. The contamination was significant; arsenic- and cyanide-laced soils had to be removed from the site, and other contaminated soils were buried in the old sintering pools. A large area of the site remains closed to the public under federal law due to contamination. The River Emscher was a fetid open sewer, having been canalized end of 19th century in a regional sewage disposal strategy. In the early 1990s it collected sewage from the region and carried it to a central treatment plant at the connection with the Rhine. Cleaning the river would have meant an infrastructural upgrade of the sewage disposal system for the entire region, which was far too costly. Instead, it was piped and buried underground, an item that made up a huge portion of the DM30 million construction pricetag. A new Emscher Canal, fed by storm- and rainwater, traces the path of the underground River Emscher, and is the principle unifying feature along the length of the park (Tate 2001). Likewise, the retained or restored the railway tracks provide a certain unity to the site (see figure 6). The park has Figure 7: Cowperplatz no Presci\"ibed circulation system; focal points and major Source: Latz + Partner 2006 features, such as gardens, plazas, and catwalks, provide Figure 6: Railway Paths and Naturalized Vegetation Source: Diedrich 2002 27 guidance and orientation (Tate 2001). The remainder of the design was light-handed, keeping the focus on the slow metamorphosis of the extraordinary structures on the site. Where necessary, Latz proposed slight modifications to existing storage bunkers, blast furnaces, and other structures to allow safe human access and use; minimal additions were made to enhance access and to create gathering spaces and focal points, as in the foundry-lining steel plates that were transformed into the Piazza Metallica (see figure 8), bunker flower gardens, lighting scheme, and the children's ramp and slide made of converted machinery. The vegetation in the park is largely a collection of native and exotic pioneer species undergoing succession. Management consists mainly of selective clearing and mowing to keep plantings in certain successional stages (Diedrich 2002). The only formal plantings are in the gardens planted over the sintering pools and the grids of trees that contrast with the industrial structures they surround (see figure 7). Significance and Uniqueness of Project The project is remarkable in its celebration of time and natural process. Instead of being restored or preserved, the steelworks structures have been modified just enough to accommodate uses such as viewing, diving, and climbing, but continue to deteriorate nonetheless. Volunteer and successional vegetation is allowed to slowly reclaim the site, with only a few formal plantings juxtaposing the decaying stone and metal around them. Time is layered and complex; some vegetation grows wild while other gardens are carefully tended or mowed, and cultural events take place in structures that continue to decline. What also makes this park remarkable was the pre-design decision to save the contaminated land and its unique heritage. The IBA's preemptive and long-sighted vision saw how these lands could provide valuable greenspace and reconnect towns that were once Figure 8: Piazza Metallica Theatre Performance Source: Diedrich 2002 28 separated by heavy industry. Duisburg-Nord is now located on bike routes that connect neighbouring cities of Dusseldorf and Dortmund, as well as a number of cultural and natural routes in the region. As well, the IB A recognized early on the value of the 'mysterious atmosphere between decay and revitalization' (Tate 2001) that was so artfully articulated by Latz + Partner. A large part of the design's success is the high level of freedom of access to a decommissioned industrial site that would not be found in North America. This landscape is real: here, you can actively explore a delightfully rough and 'dangerous' landscape. Instead of being an artificially preserved site, the place is very much in the present, exuding a feeling of restlessness and excitement. The minimal intervention in the processes of decline and regeneration allows the park to present the ongoing history of both the site and the region without being didactic. Preservation philosophy Interpretation philosophy Project emphasis Fabric/physical artefacts \u2022 Memory \u2022 View of time Linear LayeredView of landscape Static Evolving \u2022 View of the past/history Objective SubjectiveMethod Scientific Debate &amp; discovery \u2022 Intent Preservation or restoration Transformation, interpretation \u2022 Product/tool Guidelines Site-specific process and understanding Table 6: Duisburg-Nord Design Principles 29 Trappist Monastery Provincial Heritage Park: Layered Interpretation Location: Winnipeg (St. Norbert), Manitoba Date Designed/Planned: Construction Completed 1988 1980s Size: 5.25 hectares (13 acres) Landscape Architects: Client/Developer: unknown Heritage St. Norbert, Inc./Government of Manitoba Context The St. Norbert Arts Centre and Trappist Monastery Heritage Park demonstrates the creative reuse of a heritage landscape that is genuine and meaningful to the community. Once a landscape worked by Trappist monks, the site became a park in the late 1980s. The Arts Centre's early commitment to artistic expression and recreation has evolved into its identification as \"a learning centre for sustainable culture\" (SNAC 2005) while maintaining a connection with its historical origins. Project Background and History Following the arrival of white settlers around St. Norbert in the 1860s, parish priest Ritchot invited the abbot of Bellefontaine in France to establish a monastery in the area. Monks of the Order of Cistercians of the Strict Observance, called Trappists, established a monastery (see figure 9) in 1892 which expanded into a prosperous agricultural operation that included a sawmill, forge, apiary, milking barns, cannery, cheese house, bakery, and Figure 9: Original Trappist Monastery Buildings, Early 1900s Source: SNAC, 2006 30 greenhouses. The Trappists were skilled farmers, gardeners, carpenters, ironworkers, and artists that dedicated themselves to work and prayer and sold many of their products to the outside community (SNAC, 2006). Genesis of Project and Design In 1978, responding to the effects of urban sprawl that threatened their contemplative life, the Trappists moved 145 km southwest of Winnipeg to a site near Holland, Manitoba. The property was sold to Genstar Corporation, a Canadian development company. Recognizing the historical importance and aesthetic value of the property, a group of local residents created a non-profit organization, Heritage St. Norbert, Inc., and by 1980 had obtained a historic building designation from the City of Winnipeg for the structures on the site. In 1983, the vacant church and residential wing were gutted by fire, leaving only the guesthouse intact. Heritage St. Norbert focussed its efforts on preserving the only extant monastic ruins in North America; in 1987, the site became a provincial heritage park, with Genstar selling the land to the Heritage St. Norbert group. Figure 10: Chapel Ruins, 2005 Source: SNAC 2006 By the mid-1990s, the St. Norbert Arts Centre was operating numerous arts programs from the renovated guesthouse, the only remaining structure on the site. The guesthouse is used for performances, art classes, meetings, workshops, and can house up to ten people for its artist-in-residence program. Recognizing the cultural, historical, and environmental 31 significance of the site, the Arts Centre focuses on projects that combine artistic expression, education, and environmental stewardship. The park itself, 3.2 hectares adjacent to the arts centre (see figure 11), contains the ruins of the chapel and monastery (see figure 10), now used as the setting for Shakespeare and musical performances, as well as forest and riparian areas, meadows, and gardens. The park is well-used by naturalists, picnickers, joggers, cross-country skiers and photographers. In 2004, the Arts Centre expanded its programming to include permaculture and food production. By converting 6000 m2 of ornamental gardens to food production, the Centre endeavours to demonstrate concepts of self-sufficiency, ecosystem interrelationships, and sustainable agriculture to visitors and community members. Figure 11: Location of Trappist Monastery Provincial Heritage Park Source: Google Earth 2006 Significance and Uniqueness of Project The monastic buildings constructed by the Trappists were examples of unique religious architecture in Manitoba. Yet, rather than restoring or reconstructing the destroyed monastery buildings, the stone facades and walls were stabilized and allowed to remain as 32 ruins. This approach retains a sense of mystery and romance that is often lost in restoration and preservation efforts, allowing visitors new interpretations of the site's history. Not content only to present a static past, the St. Norbert Arts Centre has gone further than most embracing an ambitious mandate that includes the ongoing expression of culture and history-in-the-making. Instead of being the primary focus of the preservation efforts, the physical remnants remind of the past while supporting contemporary cultural expression and everyday experiences of the surrounding landscape. The values and occupations of the monks that historically occupied the site have been graciously interpreted to continue the tradition of contemplation, contribution to the surrounding community, craftsmanship, and stewardship. Preservation philosophy Interpretation philosophy Project emphasis Fabric/physical artefacts \u2022 Memory View of time Linear Layered \u2022 View of landscape Static EvolvingView of the past/history Objective Subjective \u2022 Method Scientific Debate &amp; discovery \u2022 Intent Preservation or restoration Transformation, interpretation \u2022 Product/tool Guidelines Site-specific process and understanding Table 7: Trappist Monastery Park Design Principles 33 Discovery Park 500 Area: Transformation Location: Seattle, Washington Date Designed/Planned: 2001-2002 Construction Completed: 2002 Size: 3 hectares (7.5 acres) Charles Anderson Landscape Architecture Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation^O111 Regional Readiness Command Army Corps of Engineers Landscape Architects: Client/Developer: Consultants/Architects: Friends of Discovery Park Context Fort Lawton, designated in 1900 by the US Army, was part of the defence system that protected the Puget Sound from naval attack. In 1972, the federal government conveyed part of Fort Lawton to the City of Seattle for parks use, which became Discovery Park (Wilma, 1999). While the history of the Fort and park communicates much about the roles of community and government in historic land uses and preservation, of particular interest is the 500 Area. Project Background and Elements A 7.5-acre site that is being incorporated into the 534-acre Discovery Park, the 500 Area contained 24 vacant barracks that were cleared in 2001. Working with community groups and the Friends of Discovery Park, who voiced preference for the land to be reforested and integrated into the 'natural' character of Discovery Park, the landscape architect devised a plan to initiate forest succession while incorporating the historic building footprints. Parking slabs were removed and the soils improved in preparation for native forest plantings (Enlow, 2004). 34 Figure 12: Army Barrack Footprints, Discovery Park 500 Area Source: American Society of Landscape Architects The former barracks structures are preserved in these plantings. Native birch and aspen are contained within \"cells,\" the building footprints, which will eventually reforest the site. As these trees mature, their white bark will conjure ghostly images of the former white-clad buildings. Once the trees have reached the height of the old barracks walls, the groundcover strips that contain them will be removed and the plants allowed to spread outwards, mingling with other native plants. Currently, the planted cells are well-defined and visible (see figure 12), but will eventually bleed into the landscape. A few walking trails will persist in the naturalized site (Enlow, 2004). Significance and Uniqueness of the Project The design raises important issues regarding the treatment of historic structures and sites. The 500 Area is one of a growing number of historical landscapes that focuses on the evolution of landscapes and human uses, instead of on halting time and preserving the physical remnants of history. It presents questions surrounding the intentions of the communication of history. Firstly, how literal do we want to be in communicating history? Instead of plainly spelling out the military history of the site in interpretive materials, visitors to the site will be aware in a more ambiguous sense that, for a brief moment in time, some kind of structures stood on the site. This could prove to be a much more emotional and 35 engaging way of presenting history, but will be lost on many visitors as the forest succession progresses. Secondly, the treatment of the 500 Area may cause us to question what constitutes history. The history represented in the vegetative cells is a mere 70 years of settlement that ignores exponentially longer periods of time when biological and geological forces dominated, or when native peoples used the landscape; perhaps the real history being represented here is the passage of time and the great equalizing forces of nature. This may cause us to question the importance of those 70 years of history, and what can be learned from such settlement patterns and uses. Ultimately, the importance of this history may not be apparent for decades or centuries. Finally, the issues of time and change are boldly present at this site. Here, the site and its most recent use are remembered for as long as it takes the native plant communities to take them back, instead of rebuilding the structures or maintaining their footprints. Do we wish this portion of the site's history to be forgotten as a new layer of history is added? How long could the barracks footprints have been preserved before they became an irrelevant history? Perhaps subtle traces of the building footprints should have been designed to remain after the site is reforested: difficult to find, but confirmation for the curious visitor that the site includes many layers of human and biological history. Preservation philosophy Interpretation philosophy Project emphasis Fabric/physical artefacts Memory \u2022 View of time Linear LayeredView of landscape Static Evolving \u2022 View of the past/history Objective SubjectiveMethod Scientific Debate &amp; discovery \u2022 Intent Preservation or restoration Transformation, interpretation \u2022 Product/tool Guidelines Site-specific process and understanding Table 8: Discovery Park 500 Area Design Principles 36 Case Study Conclusions These case studies demonstrate a range of design approaches, from almost purely preservation-oriented to almost purely interpretation-oriented. As one would expect, most sites fall somewhere in between. Pio Pico State Park primarily subscribes to the preservation philosophy, allowing the physical remnants of a past history to dictate the park's concept and design treatments. This commitment to objectivity creates a superficial landscape; the visitor gains an understanding of how the landscape looked in the 19th century but little understanding of how it worked why it enriches our understanding of the present. Wanuskewin Heritage Park is more successful at focusing on memory in the landscape and shows a range of time periods without being slavishly dedicated to one. While its perspective of the site's history still strives for a degree of objectivity, it is easier to imagine this landscape being more successful at adapting to future needs of park users and involved parties. It is more flexible about understanding the place of people, past and present, within the landscape, whether they are participating in archaeological digs, presenting First Nations culture, or simply site-seeing. Its methods are scientific not because the goal is to avoid less rigorous interpretations of history, but because new, scientific-based programs such as archaeological digs have been layered into the park's activities. While Landschaftspark Duisburg-Nord focuses on physical artifacts, the goal is clearly not to present a single period of time. Its industrial remnants serve multiple purposes, from cultivating memory of the region's industrial heritage to incorporating contemporary activities and revealing the natural effects of time, cultural, and economic change. Visitors are encouraged to draw their own conclusions and incorporate their own uses and visions. Trappist Monastery Provincial Heritage Park also incorporates contemporary programming and physical historical remnants in a manner that respects multiple time periods and uses. The park educates about heritage without being didactic or married to a single understanding of history. Finally, Discovery Park 500 Area has most fully subscribed to the interpretation philosophy principles, allowing the natural forces and the landscape to completely dictate the form of the site. However, as the landscape reverts to a less human influenced form, both memory and fabric will fade from sight. In this case, the designers have determined that 37 allowing the site's past military use to become a hidden layer serves future uses better than does highlighting this aspect which may be irrelevant or better represented elsewhere. Again, it demonstrates the importance of questioning why we want to emphasize certain aspects of heritage in the first place. The sites that subscribe primarily to the preservation philosophy are less successful at addressing time and change in the landscape than are those that incorporate principles of the interpretation philosophy. Duisburg-Nord, Trappist Monastery, and Discovery Park 500 Areas, the most successful at incorporating memory, change, and multiple uses, were sites that questioned the value of their heritage and the purpose of maintaining an understanding of it prior to deciding on a treatment; they reveal that just as much thought is required on deciding to celebrate an aspect of heritage as is on deciding to allow that heritage to fade from memory. 38 Chapter 2: The Site - Fraser River Heritage Park 2.1 Physical Context Location and Context Fraser River Heritage Park is a 16.6 hectare (41 acre) park located in Mission, B.C. (see figure 18), owned by the Fraser Valley Regional District and managed by the Mission Heritage Association. Located close to Mission's downtown area, the park retains a somewhat rural feel, and is accessed from Mary St., a quiet residential road. The majority of the park is field-like and open (see figure 13); there are no playing fields or active sports facilities on the site. Several structures are aggregated in the southwest corner of the site and include a small restaurant, picnic shelter, administrative building, bandstand, and washroom building. Figure 13: View to the Southeast The site slopes upward from the Lougheed Highway at its south edge; the western edge is lined with old and newly developed single family residences, with the Heritage Park Secondary School completing the northwestern edge. High above the northeast edge of the park sits Westminster \"** Abbey, a Benedictine Monastery (see figures 14 and 15). Jjl jjk ^'1C 'a,ye f\u00B0restC(' parcel east of the park is owned by the provincial government and includes former gravel pits and extensive network of forest trails connecting the park, Abbey, and Hatzic area. To the east of this is an extensive Figure 14: Westminster Abbey 40 Figure 15: View of the Fraser Valley from Westminster Abbey piece of forested land (see figures 17 and 19) owned by the provincial government, and St. Mary's Centre, a St6:lo-operated centre that includes the Tribal Justice Institute, Community Economic Development office, meeting spaces, and counselling and skills training services. An extensive network of forest trails in the provincial land connect the park and the Abbey. Mission's Tourist , \u2014 ^_ Information Centre is located just outside the southeast corner of the park, and is accessed from the Lougheed Highway. A steep slope prevents access to the park from the info centre. The historical cemetery of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate (see figure 16), still in use, is also just outside the southeast edge but is often treated as part of the park since it is accessed through the park. D'Herbomez Creek, no wider than 2m at any point, runs along the eastern edge of the park and drains into the Fraser River. Approximately 3km east of the site is Xa:ytem, a national historic site and important spiritual site of the St6:l6 Nation, the location of a St6:lo transformer stone and 9,000-year-old Coast Salish village. The District of Mission is currently undergoing a review of the Official Community Plan. Preliminary community feedback does not indicate that major land use, zoning, or programming changes are desired in this area of Mission. Figure 16: Oblates of Mary Immaculate Cemetery Figure 17: Forest Trail 41 Figure 18: District of Mission Context 42 Figure 19: Fraser River Heritage Park and Context in the District of Mission 43 2.2 Historical Context Past Uses The area occupied by Fraser River Heritage Park was originally used and possible occupied by the St6:lo, a Coast Salish group. In 1990, the remnants of a 9000-year-old Coast Salish village were located 3km to the east. The first settlement of the site by European settlers was in 1861, with the construction of St. Mary's Mission, for which the town of Mission was named, the first and largest mission in the Pacific Northwest. The mission and residential school were founded by the Oblates of Mary Immaculate, a Catholic order from France, who believed that they could offer a positive Christian influence to the First Nations people of the area. The school began operation in 1863 with 42 First Nations boys as students; the Sisters of St. Ann were invited to start a convent school at the mission in 1868. Originally on the shore of the Fraser River, the mission and residential school shifted north and uphill in 1885 to accommodate the Canadian Pacific Railway. The residential school was largely self-sufficient and included an orchard, gardens, dormitories, chapels, auto shop, dairy barn, slaughter house, classrooms, gymnasiums, kitchen, and dining hall (see figures 20 and 21); many of the foundations for these buildings exist on the site today (see figure 23). In 1892, British Columbia's first and largest Marian shrine was built on a rocky outcropping at the northern tip of the site. The Grotto of Our Lady of Lourdes (see figure 22), clearly visible from the Fraser River, became a landmark and the site of numerous pilgrimages, weddings, baptisms, and passion plays. Visited by thousands of people annually, the original structure contained an altar and statue of the Virgin, and was constructed of cedar and ornamented with stained glass and a silver dome. r Figure 20: Orchard Work Figure 21: Residential School Students 44 In 1961 the residential school was moved to a new site adjoining the eastern edge of the current property, where it operated until 1984, then becoming a Stoio-operated training centre. The residential school buildings, including the grotto, began to deteriorate and were demolished in 1965. The site was sold to the provincial government in 1974 and remained vacant. When the government proposed a high density housing development for the site in 1983, the newly-formed Mission Heritage Association \u201E. \u201E . . \u201E _\u201E interceded and convinced the government to use the land Figure 22: Restored Grotto of Our \u00B0 Lady of Lourdes, Looking North for a much-needed park. The site became a park in 1986, with the grotto reconstructed and opened in 1997. The Mission Indian Friendship Centre constructed a picnic shelter in 2000, a memorial for First Nations elders that were forced to go to residential schools. \u2022 building foundations - remaining \u2022 building foundations - vanished new buildings Figure 23: Foundations and Buildings, 2006 45 Figure 24: St. Mary's Residential School, Circa 1930 Source: Mission Archives 2.3 Current Uses The Mission Heritage Association operates under the mandate of developing, enhancing, and promoting the facilities, history, culture, and natural beauty of the park. As such, the park is one of Mission's primary sites for community festivals and cultural events. The park is the venue for numerous annual events, including the Mission Folk Music Festival, Old Car Sunday, lure field trials (whippet races), Easter ceremonies and egg hunts, Canada Day ceremonies, summer twilight concerts, and many other local celebrations, Figure 25: Twilight Concert Source: MHA 2005 Figure 26: Mission Folk Music Festival Source: MHA 2005 performances, and gatherings (see figures 25 and 26; table 9). 46 The park maintains a strong spiritual function, with the grotto of Our Lady of Lourdes being the site of annual pilgrimages. Each year, First Nations people hold a burning, or memorial ceremony, in the adjacent cemetery. On a daily basis, the park is primarily used by walkers, joggers, and picnickers in conjunction with the extensive trail system through the provincial land to the east. The views of the Fraser River and Mt. Baker are big draws, as are the adjacent forest trails and the fascinating building foundations (see figures 27 and 28) that remain from the mission and residential school. The primary spaces include three memorial gardens, large open grassy fields, old building foundations scattered throughout the lower half of the site, a small wetland, the now overgrown orchard, and the more programmed area including the bandstand and administrative building, as outlined above. The adjacent forest makes the park appear even larger than it is; the topography is varied and steep in some areas as the land increases in elevation northward. The results of the site analysis show that the primary issues for the park are those of connectivity and coherence. The park is surrounded by a number of different land uses, but is poorly connected to most. While its wide range of programs have been managed successfully thus far (see figure 30), the park is missing a coherent organizing system to make it a true festival venue. Other site analyses reveal vegetation, hydrological, and geomorphic patterns (see figure 29) that can further help organize the site and its programs. Figure 27: Chapel Foundation Figure 28: Foundation with Trough 47 Event Park area Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Mission Folk Festival All Old car show- Main field &amp; built area \u2022 Lure field trials Main field \u2022 Easter egg hunt and sunrise service Main field &amp; built area \u2022 Twilight concerts Built area 1 IL Pilgrimage All \u2022 \u2022 First Nations burning ceremony Cemetery \u2022 Canada Day celebrations Built area \u2022 Society for Creative Anachronism Main field \u2022 Heritage tea (heritage week) Built area u Lifetime learning walkathon Main field &amp; built area \u2022 Shakespeare in the park Main field &amp; built area \u2022 Hospice Sunflower Festival Main field &amp; built area \u2022 Celebration Community &amp; Illuminaria All \u2022 Wedding ceremonies Built area Picnics All I I i i i i i Table 9: Existing Park Programs The park is closed off for events shown in orange; blue events are open to all and are given priority over private events; events shown in yellow are private and fit in when they do not conflict with public events. Figure 30: Selected Existing Programs 49 2.4 Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Challenges Strengths Views of the Fraser River and Abbotsford's agricultural fields are visible from most parts of the park, and on clear days there is a magnificent view of Mt. Baker. Other notable views include the forested hills to the east and St. Mary's shrine on the northern edge of the park. The park appeals to many users due to its variety of programs, convenient location, history, views, proximity to a large trail network, and flexible open space. Whether for wedding ceremonies, picnics, festivals, or performances, most community members feel welcome and comfortable in this park. The remaining building foundations are a major strength and have been managed well thus far (see figure 31). The old tennis court foundation, for example, is used by the Kinsmen for Easter pancake breakfasts, and the staff residence foundation was planted as a memorial garden. Most of the foundations have been left delightfully uninterpreted and unmanaged, colonized by trees and slowly decaying. Figure 31: Two Building Foundation Treatments Weaknesses The park is poorly connected to its surroundings. Steep slopes, the Lougheed Highway, industrial lands, and CPR physically separate the park from the Fraser River. The same slope prevents a connection with the chamber of commerce at the highway (see figure 32). The new Heritage Place housing development on the northwest side is an Figure 32: Looking North to Park from Info Centre 50 unfortunately unattractive and dysfunctional edge; not only does it serve to visually and physically separate the high school and park, it makes less sacred the space occupied by the adjacent St. Mary's shrine. The houses effectively have their backs turned to the park, a chain link fence providing a thin edge and not even affording the new residents access (see figure 33). Figure 33: Housing Development Relationship to Park The OMI cemetery, as much a part of the park's heritage as the residential school building foundations, has an awkward relationship with the park. The OMI has a right-of-way along the top of the blackberry slope, connecting Mary St. with the cemetery which is still in use. The right-of-way, at a lower elevation than the main plateau of the park, has a peripheral feel and does not offer the ceremony and respect that one might expect; its separate entrance suggests that funeral parties are 'sneaking' into the park. Several years ago the OMI removed the hedge surrounding this small cemetery and replaced it with a chain link fence because of vandalism. The main entrance to the park, from Mary St. on the west side, is underwhelming. The dominant view as one approaches the park is of a large and oddly shaped parking lot, frequently empty (see figure 34). Despite its size, large areas of the adjacent park lawn are used for overflow parking during several events, including the Folk Festival, pilgrimage, and old car show. The entrance is awkward, with several different pathways leading to the various buildings. In addition, Mary St. was blocked many years ago to deter street racers, so that now main access to the park is through the adjacent residential area. Figure 34: Parking Lot, Looking South from Mary Rd. 51 Finally, the new structures near the entrance to the park, including a bandstand, cafe and caretaker's suite (see figure 35), washroom building, administration building, and picnic shelter, are oddly placed and have awkward relationships to each other and the rest of the park. Yet they are well-used and may require additions or expansion in the future to accommodate the cultural programs in the park. More structures, unless their placement and architectural character are carefully considered, would detract from the park. Currently, there are plans to use a donated turn of the century homestead cabin, imported from a different part of Mission, as part of a newly-constructed concession. Figure 35: Norma Kenney House with Cafe and Caretaker's Suite Opportunities The District of Mission currently does not have designated bike, greenway, or walking routes. 7 Avenue offers an excellent opportunity to connect the park to the historic downtown area, recreation centre, and other parks in this fashion; in addition, this could strengthen the currently awkward cul-de-sac connection at 7th Avenue's eastern terminus. The old orchard (see figure 36), currently overgrown, offers educational and cultural opportunities. Its rehabilitation could foster activities such as harvest festivals or farmers' markets, and highlight the site's Figure 36: Old Orchard - Fruit, Nut, and Alder Trees agricultural heritage in a meaningful way. Since the land to the east of the park is owned by the provincial government, the park entry from Prentis Ave. and the link to St. Mary's Centre are unofficial. However, should this land become part of the park, the Prentis Ave. entry provides an opportunity to better connect the high school and park, and to be more welcoming to residents in the northern neighbourhoods. The activities of the St6:lo-operated St. Mary's Centre are mysterious to most park visitors and could potentially be integrated with the park. D'Herbomez Creek offers several opportunities, ecological as well as educational and historical. A recently restored wetland on the high school's land is adjacent to the creek, and the remnants of the 52 residential school's reservoir remain. The stream is somewhat degraded and visually disconnected from the Fraser River, but is a major component to the aesthetic of the area. Due to the slopes of the northern area of the park, water currently collects at the base near the forest edge. This has created a small wetland area with alders lining the pathway that crosses through (see figure 37). It is a delightful experience and could further demonstrate the evolving ecology of the park. Threats It is highly recommended that the crown land to the east of the site be acquired and incorporated into Fraser River Heritage Park. The development of this land would severely diminish the site's recreational and aesthetic contributions, alter the semi-rural character of the park, and would further disconnect the park from its surroundings, namely Westminster Abbey and St. Mary's Centre. A more subtle threat to the park is the increasing demand and use by the community. While the MHA carefully arranges all programs to prevent conflicts and maximize public use, there is likely a limit to the number of programs that can be run before the park becomes overused, causing both image and maintenance problems. The construction and placement of new structures should be very carefully considered, both in terms of maintaining the character of the park and the aesthetic effect of having too many structures of conflicting architectural styles and placement. Finally, restoration activities have thus far been restricted to St. Mary's grotto, but are being considered for the residential school foundations and for the heritage structure donated to the site. Primarily, restoration does not occur in this park because of the financial cost. The park should take care to define its position on the accumulation and restoration of such structures and remnants should the opportunity arise in the future. Otherwise, the park runs the risk of becoming a theme park or inauthentic presentation of a single view of the site's history. Figure 37: Alder Walk 53 Chapter 3: Design and Programming 3.1 Concept In furthering the exploration of memory and evolution of a heritage landscape, this design employs a light hand in order to enhance or suggest past uses while incorporating existing and proposed programs. First, past uses, existing park programs, potential future programs, and biological, hydrological, and geophysical features were overlayed. With the overall goal of generating a site-specific process in place of using the typical heritage landscape guidelines, the other six interpretation design principles of memory, layered time, evolving landscape, subjective view of history, discovery-centred methodology, and intent to transform and interpret, were applied iteratively. The layers, patterns, and spaces that emerged, along with the improved community connections, formed the basis of the design (see figures 39, 40, and 41). 3.2 Community Context Of prime importance to this designis improving the connections between the park, adjacent land uses, and the larger community; these connections have been neglected or poorly considered in most cases. Given the park's size, importance as Mission's primary venue for outdoor festivals and events, and its provision of passive recreation opportunities in the central part of the community, these connections should be given immediate attention. Connections to the Larger Community Currently, Mission has not implemented a pedestrian or bike transportation network (a greenway or bikeway); it is a very automobile-oriented community. However, plans for new developments at the outer edges of the District, such as the Silverdale Residential Development, have acknowledged the importance of such alternative transportation networks; older and more central parts of Mission should also see such improvements. Central Mission is built upon several east-west tiers that rise up from the Fraser River, creating north-south roads with significant slopes. This design proposes a bikeway/greenway that runs along 7th Ave., a wide east-west arterial with less traffic than the Lougheed Highway, and through Fraser River Heritage Park to Catchpole Avenue. This would serve to better connect the neighbourhood east of the park to central Mission, as well as better 55 connecting the park with other open spaces and recreational opportunities in the area, such as Centennial Park and the Mission Community Centre. Vehicular access to the park is currently via 5th Avenue and Mary Street. This requires bringing the majority of vehicular traffic through the centre of the adjacent residential area, as Mary Street was blocked at 5A Avenue several years ago to prevent street racing. This plan recommends the unblocking of Mary Street in order to provide primary access from 7th Avenue and Mary Street, removing excess traffic from the residential community. Park Adjacencies One of the most important issues relating to the future of the park is the acquisition of the large area of forested provincial land to the east (see figure 38). The development of this land would seriously erode the park's character, connections to Westminster Abbey and St. Mary's Centre, and recreational potential. Missing the opportunity to expand this park, the only recreational area of its size and type in Central Mission, would diminish the importance of Fraser River Heritage Park as public amenity, central open space, and heritage resource. As mentioned previously, the park has no physical connection to the Fraser River (see figure 38). Providing an accessible connection would be extremely challenging given the elevation difference, and would require either extensive ramps or a bridge and elevator. In any case, at this point of time there is little point in providing people with access to the land south of the Lougheed Highway given the limited programmatic possibilities. The industrial lands between the rail line and the highway are not large enough for sports fields, and areas for festivals or passive uses are better provided in the park above. At this time, Mission has extremely limited public waterfront access, leaving no opportunities for an east-west trail connection. The proximity of the active rail line to the river itself does not allow for meaningful recreation space on the riverfront, even if a safe way to get people over the rail line were provided. Therefore, no physical connection between the park and the river has been provided at this time, although it is a future possibility, especially if a river pedestrian route were established. Instead, a visual connection is provided from a lookout platform. An allee of alder trees extends from this lookout down the slope and straight to the river, framing 56 the view. The platform itself is set into the hillside with a seating wall, and is large enough for small ceremonies. Figure 38: Park Adjacencies 57 Mission Heritage Secondary School's physical connection with the park was compromised by the construction of the Heritage Park Place low-medium density development (see figure 38). A more stable trail is proposed from the school field up the west side of the shrine slope, as well as improvements to the pedestrian connection at the northern portion of Mary Street. The abrupt and unattractive edge at the new residential development on the northwest side of the park will be mitigated by the addition of a forest buffer and small pedestrian pathways to provide residents access to the park. The park should also be connected to the info centre by creating a trail on the blackberry slope. St. Mary's Centre, despite its close proximity, is programmatically isolated from the park. A better relationship might be established by including a third festival field and encouraging future programs that link the park's and the Centre's activities. Finally, D'Herbomez Creek, which is culverted in many places, would benefit from restoration programs that would both involve the community and improve the connection between the park and the Fraser River. 58 Figure 39: Site Plan 59 Section Context Entry Grove QTO Foundation Festival Field 2 D'Herbomez Creek Festival Field 3 Figure 40: Section-Elevation A - Entry Grove to Festival Field 3 1:1000 60 1:1000 Figure 41: Section-Elevation B - Shrine to River 61 3.3 Site Design and Programming Organization The site is organized around past and current uses while allowing spaces to accommodate future uses. Water and views are secondary organizing features; the works yard drainage feature, alder walk, reservoir, and bridge crossings all employ water as a creative and connective force, while trees are used to define outdoor rooms and provide a range of closed, filtered, and open views. In general, significant design and program moves are located on the western side of the site, with fewer and lighter design interventions as one moves east through the park, eventually into second-growth forest. All spaces are designed to be flexible and evocative of potential uses. Circulation A hierarchy of pedestrian trails connects and defines the areas of the park (see figure 42). Most primary and secondary trails are hard-packed gravel and are articulated with concrete details (see Materials, below). These trails are accessible except where slopes exceed 7%. Many trails follow existing or historical circulation routes, except where new trail or path configurations were required to accommodate new programs, such as the restored orchard, amphitheatre, lookout, and blackberry slope. The park will continue to have many informal circulation routes as visitors explore the ruins and orchard and use the fields and shrine slope for walking, playing, and picnicking. Vehicles enter the park oh the west side from Mary Road, entering the regular parking lot or the overflow parking lot during larger events. A small parking lot is available in the orchard at the harvest house and also has access from Mary Road. Service vehicle (including backhoe and hearse) access is possible from the 7th Avenue cul-de-sac with the removal of bollards, with primary and secondary gravel paths designed to accept such loads. Pedestrians can enter the park in several places; on the west side, from the entry grove, parking lot, old orchard; via the 7th Avenue/Catchpole Avenue bikeway; from the info centre path up the blackberry slope; and from numerous forest trails along the north and east sides. Residents of the Heritage Park Place development on the northwest side can also enter the park through a series of small pathways. 62 Figure 42: Circulation Hierarchy 63 Gravel 15-Jtn wide Gravel with Concrete Edging i-Jm wide Figure 43: Trail Types Materials Hardscape materials were dictated primarily by the circulation routes and existing details in the park (see figures 42 and 43). Secondary paths are simple, hard-packed gravel, 1.5 to 3m in width. Primary paths, such as the bikeway, are similar gravel paths articulated with concrete edging (or at-grade curbs) that reference the building foundations found in the park. Several secondary paths require steps; these are concrete bands in a similar style. Concrete is also used sparingly for other details, such as the reservoir weir and crossing, the entry 'trough' feature, and seating walls in the works yard. Given its higher level of use and greater accessibility demands, the works yard plazas and paths are concrete pavers. Stone walls, also referencing one of the building foundations, are found in the amphitheatre, lookout, and works yard. The boardwalk, lookout, blackberry-picking decks, and bridges all incorporate wood as a hardscape material. Plant materials include native trees such as alder, cottonwood, Douglasfir, and western redcedar; some ornamental trees will be planted in the works yard area and in the ruins area, which could, over time, become an arboretum. The main entry to the works yard would include more formal and showy plantings than the rest of the park, such as iris, hosta, and native and ornamental shrubs. These plantings, along with the fruit and nuts trees of the orchard and the predominance of deciduous species, serve to accentuate seasonal change, the passing of time, and the creation of memory. Major Spaces and Design Interventions This design proposes 8 main areas (see figure 44): forest, shrine, secondary festival field, orchard, main festival fields, works yard, ruins, and blackberry slope. There are also two routes with specific programs, the funeral procession route and the pilgrimage route. The three primary designed spaces are the works yard, lookout, and old orchard/harvest house. The other major spaces (festival fields, ruins garden, blackberry slope, forest, and shrine) were minimally designed, primarily receiving better articulation with tree plantings, circulation improvements, or smaller design interventions, as discussed in the following section. Several small design moves (see table 10), or interventions, were included to enhance key areas. 65 s \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ 1 Forest \u00AB\u00BB* | \\ I 3 Secondary I \\ Festival Field J \\ \u2022 V ' 2 Shrine V_ \\ I ^ \u00ABs v \u2014 \u2022* -\u2014 \u2014 *\" vV \u2022 4 Old Orchard 5 Festival Fields y\u00BB 7 Ruins \\. \\ Blackberry' s 6WorksYard vJ \\ \\ Figure 44: Major Program Areas 66 MatjftrsJArea Ritorvenition Bridge Crossings * Trails 2 Shrine * Shrine Alder Walk Amphitheatre * Sledding Slope 7th Avenue Entrance 3 Secondary Festival Field 4 Old Orchard Harvest House Heritage Orchard * Overgrown Orchard 5 Festival Fields Festival Field Markers 6 Works Yard Entry Grove/Overflow Parking Parking Lot Bandstand and Lawn Outdoor Oven and Picnic Area Trough Water Feature 7 Ruins Clearing * Cemetery *01d Building Foundations 8 Blackberry Slope Lookout Blackberry Decks and Pathway * Existing and unmodified in this design Table 10: Major Programs and Design Interventions 1 Forested Lands The forested lands, if incorporated, would remain as such with a network of trails for hiking and possibly mountain biking. While not currently a problem, the area should be monitored for invasive plant species. Stream crossings should be unculverted and the health of D'Herbomez Creek and other tributaries improved. The former residential school reservoir is located just outside the current northeast corner of the park. D'Herbomez Creek exits the pond through a culvert at the south side, and the pond is slowly filling with plant materials and refuse. As part of restoration activities for D'Herbomez Creek and as a device to enhance memory and place-making, the reservoir 67 itself should be restored as part of D'Herbomez restoration efforts, the culvert at the south side removed and replaced with a weir/bridge crossing that enhances memory and provides an attractive stream crossing (see figures 45 and 46). The weir and bridge are composed primarily of concrete and resemble a mini dam, taking details from such larger dams and the existing reservoir barrier. Water flows over the weir and under the concrete bridge, a passage made evident by a metal grate in the bridge that allows one to see below and be mindful of both environmental process and the evolution of such built elements in the landscape. The second culvert, located at the forest entrance, will also be removed and replaced with a bridge and weir for the existing pond. The bridge will be substantial enough to permit the infrequent crossing of a service vehicle but will be pedestrian oriented; a solid'bridge also serves as a reminder of the permanence of this crossing, which was also used in the time of the residential school. Small seating ledges on the bridge would allow bikers and pedestrians to rest and enjoy the pond and stream. The third creek crossing is new and connects new pathways leading down from the park north of the cemetery and up into the secondary festival field. This route improves the connection between the fields on either side of the forest, provides a pleasant pedestrian experience, and enhances opportunities for interaction with D'Herbomez Creek. This crossing would feature a lighter, slimmer, and longer crossing, more like a suspension bridge, and would be approximately 6 meters above the water. 2 Shrine The shrine area, which includes a large grassed slope, provides space for gatherings and ceremonies at the shrine itself, as well as open space for walking, winter sledding, and picnicking. At the base of the shrine slope, a small wetland is forming in a poorly drained area, fed by runoff from the slope and earth moved by the new development above. A small path has been created through the grove of alder trees that have sprung up around the wetland, and is a peaceful and charming spot in the park. The wetland is a demonstration of the ongoing evolution of the park and should be enhanced with plantings and a boardwalk crossing through the alder grove. 68 69 Figure 47: Amphitheatre 70 The land south of the alder walk, also at the base of the slope, has a shape suggestive of an outdoor amphitheatre. Enhancing this shape with 0.5m high stone seating walls and adding trees and a small concrete stage (see figure 47) would be appropriate for existing Shakespeare in the Park, small musical, and other theatrical performances. Small steps in the walls would suggest entry and circulation, while those with less mobility could easily enter at the edges where the walls are taken up by the contours of the slope. The 7 Avenue cul-de-sac would be enhanced to make more of an entrance plaza. A tricky geometry is created here where the four paths (orchard road, cul-de-sac, gravel bikeway, and upper slope path) meet and would be mitigated with curvilinear, packed gravel plazas flanking the bikeway. These plazas would be equipped with benches and ornamental apple trees, with the trees also acting as an allee connecting the orchard and upper slope paths. One or two bollards could be removed for service vehicle entry. The trees also screen the view of the park from the road, heightening interest and creating a sense of formal entry into the park. 3 Secondary Festival Field This design proposes a third festival field to be added east of D'Herbomez Creek on the currently provincially-owned lands. Unprogrammed at this time, this festival field could accommodate a range of future programs through the park or St. Mary's Centre. 4 Old Orchard The old orchard is partly restored in this design, providing programmatic opportunities for harvest festivals, farmers markets, and volunteer and educational activities, and bringing the park's agricultural heritage into the present in a meaningful way. A small area would be cleared and replanted with heritage fruit and nut varieties, and would be operated using organic practices; a precedent is the Gellatly Nut Orchard in Westbank, British Columbia, a heritage orchard successfully run by a volunteer group that has recently become a regional park within a rapidly developing area. A single building, the harvest house, provides space for volunteers to meet, store equipment and tools, or hold workshops. A series of flexible outdoor spaces function as 71 sorting/packing yard, picnic area, and farmers market stall space. A small parking lot accommodates 10 vehicles, primarily for volunteers or visitors who cannot navigate stairs or long distances; a path through the orchard connects to the overflow parking area to the south. The heritage orchard occupies an area along Mary Road from the entry grove to the north of the harvest house, and could be expanded over the years as necessary. The orchard trail, separate from the harvest house vehicle entrance, allows pedestrians to experience the magical transition between the fresh new orchard and the wild and eerie old orchard, with its gnarled old fruit and nut trees nearly disguised by the rapidly growing new alder trees. 5 Festival Fields The two existing festival fields have been retained and will continue to provide flexible open space for the many existing festivals, events, and gatherings that occur in the park. They remain relatively unchanged except for improved edge articulation with tree plantings. In keeping with the ongoing creation of heritage in this park, the festival tradition is permanently recorded in the eastern field. Four concrete pads will be set into the field to mark the size and location of the Mission Folk Festival main stage. At other times of the year, the pads will mark this temporary use just as the remaining building foundations mark the site's use as a residential school. 6 Works Yard The existing structures in the park, located in the southwest corner, should be slightly rearranged to create a more positive space (see figure 48). This area was a kind of works yard and entry yard of the residential school, including buildings for the automotive shop, staff residences, root cellar, and slaughterhouse. Given these historical references and the area's proximity to the primary park entry, existing and future buildings should be congregated in this area. The types of programs associated with these structures also benefit from their location and proximity, including evening concerts, small gatherings, barbecues and picnics, and meetings! The works yard currently lacks positive space, being a somewhat random collection of structures. By moving the public washroom building from the centre of this space and reinforcing the central lawn area with trees and pathways, a more coherent and 72 enjoyable gathering space is created that can be shared by different programs (see figure 50). The washroom is moved into a larger structure that includes the administration centre and other future building needs, possibly a concession or conference centre; this structure is located at the edge to further reinforce the works yard space. The foundation of the former tennis court, currently used for pancake breakfasts and picnics, will be enhanced by the addition of a large concrete feast table, a kind of grand picnic table, to seat 20-24 people. It will also have an outdoor brick pizza/bread oven, a feature that has proven popular and well-used in other public parks in North America. The main entry to this area uses buildings and tree plantings to restrict views and create a sense of anticipation prior to entering the main activity area. This entry, with its small plaza, lush plantings, wooden bridge, and trough drainage detail, becomes the most formal and designed area of the park (see figures 49, 51, and 52). The aggregation of buildings and old building foundations is further emphasized with tree plantings around the perimeter, with the exception of the south edge where views of the river and Abbotsford will dominate. The trough feature extends north to provide better drainage for this flat area and to define the entry grove, where the suggestion of a grand festival field entry is made by moving the existing wooden arch feature out to the road. The parking lot itself has been reduced in size; the existing asphalt lot is large enough for approximately 100 cars, is the dominant visual feature when approaching the park, and is mostly empty for most parts of the year. In this design the lot has been reduced to approximately 35 spaces and is screened from view. The area between the parking lot and the orchard becomes a grasspave overflow parking area, capable of accommodating nearly 240 vehicles. The grasspave, or plastic grid planted with grass, encourages drainage, prevents soil compaction, and mitigates the empty parking lot effect. A grid of trees extends from the orchard into the overflow parking area, creating an entry grove that both defines the west edge of the park and welcomes visitors. 73 r&gt; o Figure 48: Works Yard Plan Section Context Administration and Conference Building Trough Water Feature Entry Bridge Trough Infiltration Bed Figure 49: Section-Elevation C - Works Yard Entry \" Section Context Bridge mid Trough Water Feature Entry Plaza Parking Lot 1:200 Figure 50: Section-Elevation D - Works Yard with View to Fraser River 76 77 78 7 Ruins The ruins area evokes different responses from different visitors; sometimes curiosity, peace, anger, or sadness. This design proposes retaining this richness of response as the old building foundations slowly decay and fade away. The foundations should remain as historical traces and do not require interpretation beyond the existing metal tags. The ageing memorial rhododendron garden should be removed, leaving a clearing defined by the existing building foundations, old horse chestnut plantings, and new trees. Even the new circulation routes vanish in this clearing, to be picked up on the other side, with the purpose of creating a contemplative space evocative of the loneliness and emptiness that was at times associated with the residential school. This clearing is located on what was the heart of the residential school, a central space between the dormitories and classrooms and the site of the chapel, of which no trace remains. The existing rhododendron garden is confusing in its location and its boundaries poorly defined. Remaining healthy rhododendrons could easily be scattered around the park, particularly into the new plantings at the northwest edge or the works yard. 8 Blackberry Slope Given the steepness of the blackberry slope, few programs are possible. Management of this area, given its lack of tree cover and slope, is difficult, and the removal of the exotic Himalayan blackberry would be difficult and time-consuming. A new pathway connecting the park and the info centre would be easy to maintain; several small wooden blackberry-picking decks will be installed, a formalization of an activity that already occurs in and around the park (see figure 53). The lookout, located at the top of the blackberry slope, is a simple, quiet space with exceptional view of the river and valley below (see figures 54 and 55). It reaches toward the river with its non-traversable allee of alder trees and is the subtle terminus of an axis that extends north to the shrine. Permission to clear selected trees and replace them with clusters of alder trees on the industrial lands below would enhance the visual connection to the river. Large trees shade two benches at the top, while a long seating wall borders the wooden platform, half a meter lower. 79 Figure 53: Blackberry Deck Figure 54: Lookout and Alder Allee Pilgrimage and Funeral Procession Routes Finally, two important routes that connect many of these major areas are included in this design (see figure 56). The existing pilgrimage route is retained, beginning in the works yard and terminating at the shrine. Elderly or physically challenged individuals can begin th the pilgrimage at the 7 Avenue cul-de-sac and traverse the upper pathway which has much less of a grade change. A new processional route for funerals is also proposed and would bring funeral processions through the heart of the park. The existing route to the cemetery is peripheral and marginalizes such activities, denying park visitors a further understanding of a significant aspect of the site's heritage. Instead, these infrequent funeral processions should be incorporated into the park to enhance ritual and remembrance and, perhaps in so doing, help bring the painful parts of the park's heritage to rest. Processions on foot could begin at the harvest house, and follow a symbolic route through the new orchard, the older overgrown orchard, and emerging into the open fields. Service vehicle access is possible at the 7th Avenue cul-de-sac, where the small procession would make its way across the landscape to the cemetery. 83 Figure 56: Pilgrimage and Funeral Procession Route 84 Design Principle Summary The interpretation design principles of memory as project emphasis, layered view of time, evolving view of landscape, and intent to transform and interpret the landscape are presented here to demonstrate the design moves that arose from them. With memory as project emphasis (see figure 57), the details of the reservoir weir emerge to evoke a sense of past uses and importance. The pilgrimage and funeral procession routes use ritual as a way of creating memory, as does the maintained OMI cemetery. The foundations, left as they are, evoke memories of the former residential school, while a clearing amongst the ruins is more subtle in remembering the loneliness and emptiness of the school. Concrete pads in the festival field permanently mark the folk festival year round, and the placement of existing and new structures in the works yard remembers the true works yard that once existed here. A trail through the old orchard allows people to understand the site's agricultural past, while new forest plantings help visitors remember that this site was not always occupied by humans, nor used as a park or residential school. The principle of layered time (see figure 58) is manifested in the restored shrine, the hub of both past and present religious activities in the park. The effects of time are clearly evident in the old orchard, where new orchard plantings emerge from old plantings that have become overgrown and obscured with time. A similar layout for the festival fields allows this new use to be layered over the former agricultural use. The funeral procession route, once hidden at the south edge of the site, now winds through the heart of the park and brings this important historical layer to light. An old path is allowed to sink into the landscape, still faintly marked by human use, while a new picnic and outdoor cooking space is introduced atop an old foundation. The site's evolution (see figure 59) becomes more apparent when a newly forming wetland is celebrated with new plantings and a boardwalk; where the earth has been manipulated over the years to form a slight bowl, an amphitheatre is introduced to further the site's evolution into a destination festival park. A former farm road becomes a transportation route that links community to park, and the old orchard, which still regenerates into native forest, has new orchard plantings and programming introduced to give the community agricultural opportunities. 85 Finally, the design principle of intent to transform and interpret (see figure 60) is seen in the new interpretation of the old reservoir, which becomes a functioning wetland and stream crossing. Where the topography suggested an amphitheatre, and amphitheatre is created. A lookout makes apparent the park's past, present, and future relationships with the Fraser River, suggesting a better connection with its line of alder plantings that connect the two spaces. A new stream crossing, where one did not exist before, improves circulation. An old foundation is transformed into an outdoor gathering space, while an old foundation detail is reinterpreted as an aesthetically pleasing drainage feature. 86 Figure 57: Design Principle - Memory Figure 58: Design Principle - Layered Time 88 \u2022 Figure 59: Design Principle - Evolution 89 Figure 60: Design Principle - Transformation and Interpretation 90 Chapter 4: Concluding Remarks Whether in response to cultural angst or for memory and validation, we are driven to create places like Fraser River Heritage Park that embody aspects of both unique and collective heritage. But the success of such places depends upon much more than the preservation of physical remnants or the creation of an image of the place frozen in time. The heritage landscape is only as good as the interpretation of its history; sometimes the question 'why?' is of more value than the question 'how?'. We may decide that a certain aspect of our heritage is important enough to bring into the present. Or, we may decide that the past is not worth celebrating or reliving, and both physical remnants and memory are allowed to change with the landscape and, sometimes, fade away or be put to rest. In either case, we must consider the importance of the ongoing creation of heritage by creating places that are relevant, unique, special, and evocative, places that are evolving records of natural and cultural change in the landscape. Such places support a variety of rituals, uses, and images that help to build memory and lead to personal understandings and conclusions. In a time when both buildings and landscapes can last for mere decades before being torn apart and redesigned, it is no wonder that we crave places that allow us to explore our heritage. Typically, the response has been to use guidelines and policies to protect buildings and places that have historic value, but this by no means guarantees that they will continue to be meaningful in the future. By allowing multiple layers, times, and interpretations to be present landscape, we can create spaces that are flexible and accommodate multiple and changing uses. Hopefully, these places will be more robust and stand the test of time, continuing to be sources of memory and meaning for both past and present. 91 Bibliography Alanen, A. R. and R. Z. Melnick. 2000. Why cultural landscape preservation? in Preserving cultural landscapes in America. Alanen, A. R. and R. Z. Melnick, eds. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Birnbaum, C. A. 1992. Making educated decisions on the treatment of historic landscapes. Association for preservation technology bulletin. 24(3/4): 42-51. Birnbaum, C. A. and C. Capella Peters, eds. 1996. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service and the Historic Landscape Initiative. Crosby, R. 1992. Wanuskewin Heritage Park, Saskatchewan: six thousand years of prairie culture. Landscape architectural review 13(1): 12-14. Diedrich, L. 2002. No politics, no park: the Duisburg-Nord model, in Parks: green urban spaces in European cities. Topos - European Landscape Magazine, ed. pp. 29-38. Munich: Verlag. Enlow, C. 2004. Narrating history with natives. Landscape architecture 94(7): 46-59. Francaviglia, R. 2000. Selling heritage landscapes, in Preserving cultural landscapes in America. Alanen, A. R. and R. Z. Melnick, eds. Balitmore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Friends of Pio Pico. 2005. Pio Pico State Historic Park, www.piopico.org Howett, C. 2000. Integrity as a value in cultural landscape preservation, in Preserving cultural landscapes in America. Alanen, A. R. and R; Z. Melnick, eds. Balitmore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Hayer, S. A. B. 1999. Things take time and time takes things: the Danish landscape, in Recovering landscape; Essays in contemporary landscape architecture. Corner, J. ed. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Huxtable, A. L. 1992. Inventing American reality. New York Review oj~Books 39 (3 December): 24-29. Industry Canada. 2005. Wanuskewin Heritage Park. http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/app/ccc/search/navi gate. do?language=eng&amp;portal=l&amp;estblmnt No=12345614S539&amp;profile=completeProfile 92 Jackson, J. B. 1980. The necessity for ruins, and other topics. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. Kaplan, R. et al. 1998. With people in mind: Design and management of everyday nature. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Landschaftspark Duisburg-Nord. 2006. Landschaftspark Duisburg-Nord. www.landschaftspark de Latz + Partner. 2006. Latz + Partner Landscape Architects, www.latzundpartner.de Lowenthal, D. 1985. The past is a foreign country. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lynch, K. 1972. What time is this place? Cambridge: The MIT Press. Mason, R. 2003. Fixing historic preservation: a constructive critique of'significance.' Places 16(1): 64-71. Parks Canada. 2003. Standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in Canada. Prepared by the Working Group on Conservation Standards and Guidelines for the Historic Places Initiative, Department of Canadian Heritage. Paterson, D. and L. J. Colby. 1989. Heritage landscapes in British Columbia: A guide to their identification, documentation, and preservation. Vancouver: University of British Columbia. Scott, O. R. 1986. Tipperary Creek Conservation Area. Landscape architectural review 7(2): 5-9. St. Norbert Arts Centre (SNAC). 2006. History, www.snac.mb.ca/history Sorvig, K. 2005. Landscapes below the surface: interpreting the past at Pio Pico State Historic Park. Landscape architecture 95(3): 112-123. Tate, A. 2001. Landschaftspark Duisburg-Nord. in Great city parks, pp. 114-122. New York: Spon Press. Treib, M. 1999. Nature recalled, in Recovering landscape: Essays in contemporary landscape architecture. Corner, J. ed. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Treib, M. 2002. Must landscapes mean?: Approaches to significance in recent landscape architecture, in Theory in landscape architecture. Swaffield, S., ed. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 93 Wanuskewin Heritage Park. 2005. Wanuskewin Heritage Park, www.wanuskewin.com Wilma, D. 1999. Fort Lawton is established on February 9, 1900. in HistoryLink.org: The Online Encyclopedia of Washington State History [database online] [cited 11/1 2005]. Available from \\vww.historvlink.org/essavs/output.cfm?file_id=1757. 94 "@en
<https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/831/items/1.0092512>