Does Historical and Cultural Heritage Hamper or Stimulate Foreign Real Estate Investment in Historical Cities - Coursework Example

St Petersburg St Petersburg is one of the most culturally diverse and historically important cities in the world, particularly in regard to the magnificent old architectural designs most of which can be traced back centuries into the country’s history (Volkov, 2010). Standing at a vantage point; perhaps from the mansion second floor window in the west side, one can see directly ahead of St Isaak cathedral. Away from it, lies the famous Astoria Hotel, a masterpiece made out of red brownstone that was constructed in 1912. There is also the stature of Nicholas one a top reining horse and across the bridge one can also see the impearl Mariinsky palace made remarkably visible by the gallant anchor and grappling hook themed flag of St Petersburg flying high. The ever spring green Alexander garden which extends for a few miles with the broad river Neva flowing past. These and many other structures and features that characterize the St Petersburg skyline have made it to be one of the top historical tourism cities in Europe (Trachtenberg and Hyman, 1986). There have been numerous tussles between real estate developers and preservationists in this town. This is because a huge part of urban Russia is occupied by concrete apartments designed in the postmodern period with the intention of housing as many tenants as possible to handle the ever-expanding population. In the backdrop of all this, St Petersburg emerges as a jewel set idyllically by the river Neva and sharply contrasting with the nation’s postmodern infrastructure. In the course of them Soviet period it was been relegated to a run-down and neglected town, but it later reclaimed its glory and with this resurrection have come skyrocketing property values. This has resulted to questions of whether the city can survive with its historical significance intact in view of its incredible real estate potential. While UNESCO protects most of the structures for their historical relevance, there have been disputes on whether the real estate in St Petersburg is more beneficial acting as cultural edifice or being developed for the sake of economic growth. The opinion of the Russian government on this matter is not difficult to guess; in 2013, it prepared a draft document for UNESCO that appeared to be the start of a process to remove numerous protected historical sites from the organizations’ protected list of properties. According to Russians opposed to the move, it is a question of reserving the cultural integrity of the city and profiting from the high property values that would make modern structures seem a profitable alternative to the less practical but historically relevant ones. In its defence, the foreign ministry, which represents Russia at UNESCO has claimed the document is still at its draft stages and there is no imminent threat to the city (Englund, 2013); nevertheless, that the document’s objectives include removing the protection from many of St Petersburg historical structures is worrying. Many historians in the city who are well aware of the worth of the buildings claim the government committees set up to deal with issues such as these are often comprised of bureaucrats. They are ignorant in as far as architecture and its history are concerned and to them the issue of preservation is spurious when weighed against development. All things considered, the city being is under UNESCO’s designation creates a moral and ethical challenge for the removal of properties from the list and is seen as setting a very regressive precedent since developers get the proverbial foot in the door (Englund, 2013). The primary cause for concern in the recent past is the knowledge of the Russia government’s recent attempt to commence the process of excluding parts of the western Caucasus from the UNESCO designation in preparation for the massive construction work in preparation for the 2014 winter Olympics. Some of the proposed building projects that have been rejected or resulted in controversy over the course of the last decade include the constructions of condominiums and apartment complexes. Some of these are skyscrapers which preservationist fear will overrun the skyline. They worry that without height restrictions, tall buildings could negatively affect development especially if the supply of available space exceeds the demand; in addition, there are those claiming tall buildings will block out the view to the old buildings, which are a vital element of the city’s cultural heritage (Trumbull, 2012). With increasing population, more so because of high urbanization rate, the demand for structures in which many people and installations will be housed continues to grow. However, due to the need for preservation of cultural heritage, many of old buildings take up a great deal of space which could be more profitably exploited. The height and expansion limited the growth of St Petersburg since they put caps on the number of new buildings that can be put up there (Bowring, Egoz & Ignatieva, 2009). Many of the old buildings are specialized as art galleries or museums and institutes; while they may have been practical in the past they may not sufficiently meet the needs of modern city housing (Shvidkovsky and Shorban, 2007). One of the most important roles of buildings is to provide accommodation and premises for commercial and private installations such as shops and factory floors. Notwithstanding, many of the old buildings cannot be converted into any of this for the sake of their historical integrity. As a result critics of the preservationist attempts to derail modern constructions argue the opportunity cost in terms of development is too high. On the other hand, the preservation of the historical heritage does not necessarily imply that the development will be derailed and in some instances, it can be construed as having the opposite effect. One of the main functions of St Petersburg for example is that of a major tourist attraction, each year millions of tourists visit the city and contribute a great deal to its social and economic growth (Buckler, 2005). Therefore, in order to serve them efficiently, it has been necessary to come up with numerous installations and structures such as hotels, and tour agency offices, many of which have sprung up in within and outside the city. It is worth taking to account that many of these tourists are attracted by the city’s cultural historical edifices particularly the buildings dating back to the times of the Czars and beyond (Abelsky, 2005). Therefore, by taking down some of these buildings for the sake of tourists, as the authorities have been intent on doing in the last few years in essence, as self-defeating endeavour. An analogy of this can be demonstrated by the example of a hypothetical city where the authorities want to pull down a 200-year museum to put up a modern hotel complex for tourists whose primary reason for visiting is to see the museum. However, tourism is by no means the only reason for preserving the city’s heritage; the value of the ancient structures to the culture and traditions of the Russian people is invaluable as they constantly serve to remind them of the rich history of their ancestors. The Tsar’s and other numerous leaders who contributed to the building and development if the city which is better planned than many modern days cities is a legacy that cannot be neglected (OConnor, 2005). In a sense, the cultural heritage should be preserved not only for the sake of the benefits it brings to the country on an extrinsic level but for its own sake since even in that capacity it is still an extremely important part of the Russian past and present. An example of the conflict that embodies the discourse on construction is evident taking to account an event in 2010 where St Petersburg city court endorsed the ruling of a district court allowing the construction of a 403-meter Skyscraper in the city’s historic centre. This predictably resulted in outrage from local residents and preservationist groups terming the move as illegal and immoral in a town where the highest building is supposed to be no more than 100 meters. It has been argued that the structure by Gazprom (an energy giant in Russia) will block out the skyline and opponents have claimed that in allowing it, the city will be showing disregard for Russian commitment to the agreements in the UNESCO world heritage convection (Dixon, 2010.). The question that faces the residents of St Petersburg today is whether the need to preserve the city’s glory is more important than the need to develop it into a modern city. As demonstrated above, those are essentially two sides of the same coin; on one hand, preserving the city will indirectly result in growth since the tourism industry will thrive and even though the developments may not be immediately visible in the vicinity they will assist the outskirts and neighbouring towns. One the other hand, by allowing the construction of buildings such as the one proposed by Gazprom, the city is bound to experience burst of economic development since the real estate value especially because of the value of the old structures and cultural heritage is bound to be immense. However, developers must be cognisant of the fact that despite the need to build new structures, the historical integrity of St Petersburg cannot be altogether ignored since it plays a big role in making the real estate valuable (Bowring, Egoz & Ignatieva, 2009). Therefore, even as new buildings are put up they should steadfastly adhere to the building codes in the city in order to ensure the new structures do not interfere with the rich architectural heritage. References Abelsky, P. 2005. High-Rise Questions Popping Up in St. Pete. Moscow Times. Available at: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/high-rise-questions-popping-up-in-st-pete/224602.html Bowring, J., Egoz, S., & Ignatieva, M. (2009). ‘As good as the West’: two paradoxes of globalisation and landscape architecture in St. Petersburg.Journal of Landscape Architecture, 4(1), 6-15. Buckler, J. A. (2005). Mapping St. Petersburg: imperial text and cityshape. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Dixon, M. (2010). Gazprom versus the skyline: Spatial displacement and social contention in St. Petersburg. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 34(1), 35-54. Englund, W. 2013. St. Petersburg, Russia’s urban jewel, has a real estate problem. Washington Post. Available at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/russias-urban-jewel-has-a-real-estate-problem/2013/06/28/727419ae-dff1-11e2-b2d4-ea6d8f477a01_story.html OConnor, J. (2005). Creative Exports: Taking Cultural Industries to St Petersburg. International journal of cultural policy, 11(1), 45-60. Shvidkovsky, D., & Shorban, Y. (2007). Russian architecture and the West (p. 126). Connecticut: Yale University Press. Trachtenberg, M., & Hyman, I. (1986). Architecture: From Pre-History to Postmodernism. Abrams. Trumbull, N. S. (2012). Urban Pulse—Claiming" The Right to the City": Architectural Preservation in St. Petersburg as Cultural and Political Catalyst.Urban Geography, 33(7), 1000-1007. Volkov, S. 2010. St Petersburg: A Cultural History. New York: Simon and Schuster. Read More