AFFORDANCES OF HERITAGE ENVIRONMENT:
A CONSERVATION APPROACH TO
HANOI ANCIENT QUARTER IN VIETNAM








NGO MINH HUNG
(BArch, UCE; Msc, AIT-Thailand)



Volume 1 of 2


A THESIS SUBMITTED

FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE


2009

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, the author expresses his profound gratitude and heartfelt appreciation to his study
supervisors, Associate Professor Wong Yunn Chii (PhD), Head of Department of Architecture
(DOA), Professor Heng Chye Kiang (PhD)- Dean of the School of Design and Environment
(SDE), National University of Singapore (NUS), for their devoted guidance, constant
encouragement, invaluable suggestions and constructive criticism, which put their students in
the right tract since beginning to the end, without which this work could hardly have taken the
present shape.
Likewise, the author expresses his deep gratitude to the other members of the examination
committee, Associate Professor Wong Chong Thai Bobby, Vice Dean of SDE and Associate
Professor Johannes Widodo (PhD), Director of CASA, Associate Professor Joseph Lim,
Deputy Head of DOA, NUS and Dr. Lai Chee Kien, DOA, NUS for their kind help, useful and
valuable comments. The author expresses his sincere gratitude to the Department of
Architecture, the Asia Research Institute and the International Relations Office of NUS for
providing the scholarship, award and opportunities to study abroad for him.
The author would like to extend special thanks to Dr. Nguyen Dinh Toan, Director, Mr. Ngo
Trung Hai and Ms. La Kim Ngan, Vice Directors of VIAP- MOC; Dr. Nguyen Hong Tien,
Vice Director of ATI- MOC; Mr. Vuong Anh Dung- Vice Director of DAP- MOC; A/P Luu
Duc Hai - former Director of NIURP (old) for their valuable encouragements to him during the
period of study.
Thanks and appreciations are due to the Association of Vietnam Architects, the Hanoi
University of Architecture, JICA (Japan), Penang Heritage Trust (Malaysia), Goethe Institute
(Hanoi); Mr. Choo Meng Foo, Prof. Tran Hung, Prof. Nguyen Huu Dung, Ms. Nguyen Minh
Trang, Dr. Tran Lan Anh and Dr. Tran Que Ha for many kindly provided him valuable data
with information.
The author is especially thankful to the staff of DOA, Mr. Luu Doan Huynh and Ms. Nguyen
Minh Huyen for logistic cooperation. Special appreciation is also due to the local dwellers and
authorities of the areas under study, who took great interest in and gave to give their opinions

during field surveys.
The author extends his heartfelt gratitude and indebtedness to his Parents and Parents-In-Law
for their unfailing love and generous interest, moral inspiration, encouragement and valuable
contributions. The author is also grateful to his NUS, CASA friends for their support and
assistance to his efforts.
Last and not least, his unbounded gratitude and appreciation go to his wife Mrs. Dao Thi Thu
Ha and his son Ngo Minh Quang for their sacrifices, understanding and encouragement to him
prior to and during his study at NUS.
ii

TABLE OF CONTENT
VOLUME ONE
Page

Chapter Content
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 General review and problems- Theoretical and Local approaches 2
a. International level 2
b. Professional level 6
c. Case- studies in developed and developing countries 11
1.2 Vietnam and local conservation movements 16
a. Ha Tay and Bac Ninh provinces (northern Vietnam) 18
b. Hue city (central Vietnam) 19
c. Hoi An ancient town (southern part of central Vietnam) 20
1.3 Affordance theory 22
1.3.1. The original concept 22
1.3.2. Application of “Affordances” in various environments 23
1.3.3. Methods of studying the “Affordances” in the urban environment 28
1.4 Further development 28
The development of “Affordances” of Heritage Environment (ASHE) 28

a. The potential affordances in conservation (PAC) 30
b. Ground- up Profile (GUP) for conservation of the built heritages 35
c. Distribution of potential affordances 35
1.5 Approaches and case studies 37
a. Statement of problems- Hanoi Ancient Quarter 37
b. Research questions 41
1.6 Objectives of the research 41
1.7 Research methodology 44
a. The choice of case studies 45
b. The data collection method 51
c. Data analysis 53

2 HANOI ANCIENT QUARTER IN THE PAST AND AT PRESENT 54
2.1 Previous studies on Hanoi Ancient Quarter 54
a. Practical projects 54
b. Other academic researches 56
2.2. The heritage environment changes and current physical settings 62
2.2.1. Past and present behavior action on street fronts, a commercial space 63
2.2.2. Residential blocks and their development 66
2.2.3. Present practices to the built heritages 68
2.3 Nature of behavioral phenomenon and its effects 77
iii

2.3.1. Hanoian’s behaviors towards significant properties of the built heritage 77
2.3.2. The effects of Rural Stimulus to indigenous culture in the built heritage 78
2.3.3. Critical discussion on behavioral changes in Hanoi heritage environment 81
2.4 Hypothesizing the ideas 84
2.4.1. Main factors influencing the significant properties of the Ancient Quarter 84
2.4.2. Conceptualizing the built environment’s transition 85
2.4.3. Future movement driving the Ancient Quarter’s environment 86


3 DISTRIBUTION OF AFFORDANCES IN THE BLOCKS 88
3.1
Users’ behavior towards significant properties of the places through social
phenomena
88
3.1.1. Streetscape: Outdoor context 90
3.1.2. Influences of the street meanings 94
3.1.3. Roofscape and urban skyline 98
3.1.4. Street- façade and contributory buildings 100
3.1.5. Landscape surrounding the blocks 105
3.1.6. Architectural objects: Dwelling, religious and historic buildings 108
3.1.7. The architectural surfaces 110
3.1.8. The corridor (covered & open): Shared context 112
3.1.9. Inner courtyards 114
3.2 Summary 117

4
IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL AFFORDANCE LEVELS ON PLACE
CONTRIBUTION- USER POSSIBILITY INTERACTIONS
122
4.1 User group - environmental place relationships 122
4.1.1. The traditional social setting 122
4.1.2. The physical place setting in outdoor and shared contexts 124
4.2 Affordance types 126
4.3 Examining place contribution- user group relationships 127
4.3.1. The Trader- Street Front relationship 128
4.3.2. The Non resident- Public place relationship 145
4.3.3. The Owner- the Building/ its front relationship 153
4.3.4. The Religionist - spiritual Precinct relationship 166

4.4 Summary 172

5 APPLICATION OF “GROUND-UP PROFILE” TO THE PLACES 173
5.1 Development of GUP process 173
5.2 Formulation of GUP components 174
5.3 Testing the GUP stages through selected examples 176
5.3.1. Corridor, courtyard, cooking places of the compound- no. 66 Hang Bac 176
iv

5.3.2. An oldest tube-house (47 Hang Bac) and its surroundings 185

5.3.3. The street-section along Hang Bac street (Building No.13-15)- (Outdoor
context)
199
5.4 Summary 210

6 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK 211
6.1 Theoretical Approaches 211
6.2 Concluding Remarks 213

Bibliography 217
Additional References 224

VOLUME TWO



Appendix A: Publications



Appendix B: Field Surveys


Appendix C: Photo of The Places (in the Past & at Present)


Appendix D: Other studies and Relevant Documents


v

LIST OF TABLES
Chapter 1
Page

Table 1.1 The analysis of ASHE, PAC of the Ancient Quarter 33
Table 1.2 Statistical data and characteristics of the Ancient Quarter 37
Table 1.3
Environments of the Ancient Quarter in the study on “functional
affordance”
50
Chapter 2

Table 2.1 Commercial activities along street patterns 65
Table 2.2 Statistical data of architectural constructions in the Ancient Quarter 71
Table 2.3 Misused relics by non-religious activities 75
Table 2.4 Statistical data on the use of sidewalk surfaces 76
Table 2.5 Present conditions of the built heritages 80
Table 2.6
Indigenous community’s expectations towards housing matters in the

local wards
81
Chapter 3

Table 3.1 Streetscape- related functional affordances 97
Table 3.2 Roofscape- related functional affordances 100
Table 3.3.a Existing situation of the Street-facades 102
Table 3.3.b Street facade- related functional affordances 105
Table 3.4.a Statistical data on street-trees and its existing condition 106
Table 3.4.b The landscape- related functional affordances 108
Table 3.5 Architectural object- related functional affordances 110
Table 3.6 Architectural surface- related functional affordances 112
Table 3.7 The corridor- related functional affordances 114
Table 3.8 The courtyard- related functional affordances 117
Table 3.9 Summary of outdoor and shared place- related affordances 119
Chapter 4

Table 4.1 User profile at the sites 123
Table 4.2
Interaction between the Front contribution and The Merchant
possibility
135
Table 4.3
Data of community’s experience based on the Front/building-
development
141
Table 4.4 The Front (Shop) contribution - the trader possibility Interaction 142
Table 4.5 Present conditions of residential places 147
Table 4.6
Interaction between the public place contribution and the non resident

possibility
149
Table 4.7 Statistical data on interviewees in the blocks 154
Table 4.8
The building/ its front contribution- primary Owner possibility
158
vi

interaction
Table 4.9
Relationship between the building/ its front contribution and The
secondary owner possibility interaction
163
Table 4.10 Physical functional conditions of spiritual system 167
Table 4.11
Interaction between Religious place contribution and religionist
possibility
168
Chapter 5

Table 5.1 Influences from architectural context 178
Table 5.2 Place contribution - Non resident possibility Interaction 179
Table 5.3 Vertical affordance indexes from contributions of the places 180
Table 5.4 Horizontal affordance indexes from user’s possibilities in place-usage 180
Table 5.5 Summary of the affordances on shared places 181
Table 5.6 Suggestions on priorities in behavioral flow to shared places 184
Table 5.7 Present population in the “Chồng diêm” style tube- house 187
Table 5.8 Influences from architectural context 188
Table 5.9 The optional set of utilized affordances 189
Table 5.10 Vertical affordance indexes from contributions of the places 190

Table 5.11 Horizontal affordance indexes from user’s possibilities in place-usage 191
Table 5.12 Summary of the affordances on architectural components 192
Table 5.13 Suggestions on priorities in behavioral flow to the building/ its front 197
Table 5.14 Statistical data of Hang Bac street 199
Table 5.15 Profile of a front street section (no.13-15 Hang Bac) 200
Table 5.16 Influences from architectural context 201
Table 5.17
Interaction between Street front contribution and speculative trader
possibility
202
Table 5.18 Vertical affordance indexes from contributions of the places 203
Table 5.19 Horizontal affordance indexes from user’s possibilities in place-usage 203
Table 5.20 Summary of the affordances on street-front sections 204
Table 5.21 Suggestions on priorities in behavioral flow to street-front sections 207

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Chapter 1

Page

Figure 1.1
The frame on applying affordances to the Heritage Environment
Conservation
34
Figure 1.2 Flow chart of research methodology 44
Chapter 2


Figure 2.1 Conceptualized developments of residential blocks and tube-houses 67
Figure 2.2 The environmental changes at a typical parcel 73
Chapter 3

Figure 3.1.a The respondents’ recognition of the Quarter’s streets 91
Figure 3.1.b “Affordance” of Streetscape 92
Figure 3.2 “Affordance” of Street meanings 95
Figure 3.3 “Affordance” of Roofscape 98
Figure 3.4 “Affordance” of Street-facade 103
Figure 3.5 “Affordance” of Landscape 107
Figure 3.6 “Affordance” of Architecture Objects 109
Figure 3.7 “Affordance” of Architectural Surfaces 111
Figure 3.8 “Affordance” of Covered- Open corridors 113
Figure 3.9 “Affordance” of Inner Courtyards 116
Chapter 4

Figure 4.1
The model of “place contribution- user possibility” relationship
(CPI)
125
Figure 4.2 Expanded “place contribution - user possibility” model 127
Figure 4.3 The merchant’s behavioral flow to the Front 129
Figure 4.4
Diagrammatic representation of affordance levels between
traditional merchant and the Front
137
Figure 4.5 The speculative trader’s behavioral flow to the Front 138
Figure 4.6
Diagrammatic representation of affordance levels between the
speculative trader and the Front (shop) contribution

144
Figure 4.7 The non- residential behavioral flow to the Public place 145
Figure 4.8
Diagrammatic representation at affordance levels between non-
resident and public places
152
Figure 4.9
Typical primary owner’s behavioral flow to the building and its
Front
155
Figure 4.10
Diagrammatic representation at affordance levels between primary
owner and building/ its fronts
160
Figure 4.11 The secondary owner’s behavioral flow to the building and its fronts 161
Figure 4.12
Diagrammatic representation at affordance levels between
165
viii

Secondary Owner and building/ its fronts
Figure 4.13
Diagrammatic representation at affordance levels between religionist
and spiritual precincts
171
Chapter 5

Figure 5.1 “Ground- up” profile towards conservation plans 174
Figure 5.2
The physical components, elements of the residential blocks and the

Ancient Quarter
176
Figure 5.3
Analyzing plan- layout of the corridors, courtyards and cooking
places
177
Figure 5.4
Diagrammatic representation of goals and at affordance levels in
case of non- residential.
182
Figure 5.5 Present conditions of shared places 186
Figure 5.6
Diagrammatic representation of goals and affordance levels in case
of secondary owner and non- residential
195
Figure 5.7
Diagrammatic representation of goals and affordance levels in case
of speculative traders.
205


LIST OF MAPS

Map 1.1 Location of the projects 40

Map 1.2 The Ancient Quarter in Master Plan of Hanoi Capital to 2020 46

Map 1.3 Location of the selected blocks and conservation grade I & II 47

Map 1.4 Site One: The smallest scale block 47


Map 1.5 Site Two: The medium scale block 48

Map 1.6 Site Three: The largest scale block 49


ix

ABBREVIATIONS AND GLOSSARY
Vietnamese terms

Bạch Mã, Chồng Diêm Unique name of the locations, styles and things in the Ancient
Quarter
Đèn nhà ai nhà nấy rạng My house is my castle (or each one for himself)
Hữu xạ tự nhiên hương Good wine needs no bush
Kẻ Chợ Market and Town people
Phố Nghề Handicraft trades street (dwelling building- communal house-
workshop)
Phố Buôn Bán Trading street (group of shop- houses)

Specific terms

ASHE AffordanceS of Heritage Environment
PAC Potential Affordances (PA) in Conservation
CPI Place Contribution- User Possibility Interaction
GUP Ground-Up Profile
HAQ Hanoi Ancient Quarter (or 36 Old Streets Quarter/ Kẻ Chợ of
Hanoi city)
HPC Hanoi People’s Committee
Horizontal affordance: It is “affordances” that are determined within a horizontal space.

In other word, these affordances are analyzed and summed- up
horizontally.
MOC Ministry of Construction
Non- resident A group includes state employees (retired) and other pensioners
whom migrated from outside
Primary owner The person/ family members have inherited (or received)
properties/ assets from ancestors - whom built up and owned
over the periods. They have certain understandings on
developmental history of the places/ buildings in the sites
Potential Affordances: The term expresses environmental potentialities contributing
opportunities to user and user’s possibilities in responding to
such potentialities in the environment. It possibly involves
certain kinds of affordances, which ensure a more successful
community involvement in retaining architectural and urban
heritage value
Perceived Affordances: It is the functional property of a feature, which offers user the
possibility for an activity. Perceived affordances determine
environmental quality through specific physical characteristics of
x

the place that are found to be functionally based on the user-
group and individual criteria.
Secondary owner One purchased heritage buildings/ properties for unique
commercial purpose/ business
Speculative trader The people just pay attention on business and supplying urban
and tourist services

Traditional merchant Offsprings of first merchants in the guilds of the Ancient Quarter
Tube-house number A noun implies ordinal number of a house (shop- house,
collective house), which shared by several families, households

or a group of similar users.
Shaped Affordances: It is the property of a feature, which is being changed by the
activity of a user’s group.
Speculative trader- place
contribution interaction
This expressed an interaction between speculative trade with
what a place is able to contribute to. This interaction presented
the trader’s abilities that constitute relevant affordances in using
spatial components of such place for everyday activities, both
negatively and positively, towards conservation acts.
Shared context It described an environment (shared facilities, shared space) used
by a group of habitants or a community.
Utilized Affordances: It is the property of a feature being used by a user’s group in an
activity.
Vertical affordance: It is “affordances” that are determined within a vertical space. In
other word, these affordances are analyzed and summed- up
vertically.
Attachment
phenomenon
This phenomenon means vendor’s possibility to attach material
things on building facade as uncontrolled area for operating
private business. This figures out the user’s attach-ability, as one
of typical affordances in Hanoi Ancient Quarter, of necessary
things to such place practically.


1

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

In recent years, many rapidly modernizing cities have been demolishing their heritage
resources and characters in order to promote modernization. Many of them have now
recognized their substantial losses as well as linkage between the past and the present
as a base for future development. Certain urban areas, involving tangible and
intangible values, have been considered by conducting works concerning protection
and preservation for the sake of the next generations, and are called as “urban heritage
environments”. Therefore, retaining the values of urban heritage environments has
become a matter of great urgency and a more urgent task on which focused the great
efforts of local and international (ICOMOS and UNESCO) organizations. Urban
heritage conservation is a strong movement in today’s urban planning and
development. In fact, there are two conservation approaches- (i) top- down and; (ii)
bottom- up depending on conditions and locations in each country. The top-down
approach, usually seen in developed countries, involves in many cases one- directional
conservation efforts based on State’s economic potentials and large investments.
However, it seems that so far no effort under the top-down approach has been
successful due to a lack of understanding about the real relationship between physical
urban heritage environments and the current users. The bottom- up approach has been
implemented in the conservation process in developing countries and usually relies on
local resources (labor and finances) at the community level. Conservators have found it
necessary to this approach apply it in the preservation of larger scale areas involving
various heritage user groups. In the past, the study of the physical environment, which
had attracted much interest, was designed to examine “how environment
characteristics should be described and perceived through the relationship between the

2

environment and humans”. One of the terms exposing these relationships was
“affordances” of environment, coined by Gibson (1986, 1979), focused on “what the
environment offers the animals, and on what it provides or furnishes, either for good or
ill”. It is used to study the relationship between humans and the ecological

environment. Based on Gibson’s theory, affordances were applied to examine the
relations between the urban environments and the urban people (Kytta, Clark &
Uzzell, 2002) in outdoor contexts. In these practical studies, affordance levels
(perceived, utilized and shaped), provided places that encouraged social interaction
and retreat (Clark & Uzzell, 2002) and sociality (Kytta, 2002). Furthermore, the
affordance taxonomy is taken into account as graspable opportunities to build up the
categories of affordances about what particular environments support and what the
observer’s actions can be reflected beyond the environmental characteristics detected
accordingly. In other words, the distribution has been a framework for the researcher,
city planner and designer who use available predictability to arrange better urban
environment settings towards social and people interaction in outdoor contexts. For
this reason, as a conceptual integration of “affordances” into “urban heritage
environment”, I have devised the term “affordances of heritage environment” (ASHE),
to examine the interplays of heritage environment and its user. The result is a “ground-
up” profile (GUP) approach in conservation.
1.1. General review and problems- Theoretical and Local approaches
a. International level
- Heritage meanings: There are many definitions of heritage. Traditionally, Heritage is
a term that came to the fore in the 1970s in Europe, and its meaning increasingly was
expanded in the 1980s and came to encompass other aspects, with increasing uses for
commercial purposes (Tran, 2004). Over the periods, heritage definitions were shifted

3

from term-to-term such as “historical monument” (Venice Charter
1
, 1964) or
“monument and site” (ICOMOS, 1965) to “cultural property” (UNESCO, 1968) and
site-to-site as well. Regarding this circulation, Ahmad (2006) sharply indicated that
meanings of “heritage” have fully been homogenized from country-to-country; in other

words, “no uniformity exists between countries”.
Hence, Powell (NUS) suggested the built heritages provide a link between the past and
the present and help us to understand the connections to our local history in urban
development. By maintaining the existing heritages, old buildings for instance, we are
aware of our roots, the times wherein our forefathers lived and thus we can maintain a
cultural image of ourselves. It also provides an identity to the town. The heritage also
includes various craftsmanship works and materials etc, which are becoming
increasingly rare. So, the heritages must be conserved for the Future through multi-
disciplinary approaches and in particular through stakeholders.
- Heritage conservation: The central idea of heritage conservation has been applied, by
several researchers, in managing changes rather than denying them, particularly in
ancient quarters and historic towns. Lichfield (1988) showed that conservation means
the management of the built environment and the architectural heritage. It aims to
restrain the rate of change in the urban system and works towards achieving a better
balance between conservation and development than would otherwise prevail. Then,
the concept of urban conservation has been gaining in popularity in developing
countries. As a term, urban conservation is now increasingly used by urban managers,
experts and local authorities in large precincts, while the local community and
inhabitants, who seek to preserve their own heritage and property are not yet familiar
with it.

1
Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments (CATHM), the Venice Charter 1964.

4

- Heritage Conservation principles: From a researcher’s point of view, Ahmad (1993)
found that urban conservation can be divided into three categories: (i) conservation of
historic building(s); (ii) conservation of historic sites and; (iii) conservation of culture.
Concerning the first category, Bernard (1982) said that conservation of historic

buildings means enhancing the emotional (wonder, identity, continuity, spiritual and
symbolic), cultural (historic, age and scarcity, aesthetics and symbol, architectural,
townscape, landscape and ecological) and use (functional, economic, social and
political) values for the huge stone constructions of European countries. These values
and their boundaries were quite abstract and unable to be easily recognized and
evaluated by the community as the main users and observers without the assistance of
experts. Moreover, advanced technologies and specialized knowledge are required for
examining conditions of the buildings if conservation is to be successful.
In regard to the conservation of historic sites, the Venice Charter (1964) emphasized
restoration of significant structures and relevant settings of the site without living
organisms inside. However, there are many historic sites where urban communities are
living in (Malacca, Penang, Taiping in Malaysia; Bhaktapur in Nepal; LiJiang- China
and etc). With regard to the third category, conservation of culture involves intangible
properties (Mohammed, 1990; Bunji, 1979) such as (1) cultural rehabilitation; (2)
cultural restoration; (3) cultural conservation, which are commonly integrated into
conservation of historic buildings and sites. The urban conservation concept and its
components, therefore, are a positive movement that is substantially appropriate for
developed countries where in previous years conservation was fully supported by State
and local resources.
- The Conservation movements: Looking back at the recent centuries, Ruskin (1851-3)
suggested that there was a relationship between human creativity and the social and

5

cultural context with respect to the maintenance of the historic authenticity of
architecture and failure to retrieve or to restore should be equated with loss. Later on,
the emergence of the idea of restoration of “historic monuments” was compared with
the previous concepts as put forth earlier by Schinkel (Germany), Viollet le Duc
(France) and Scott (United Kingdom) in the nineteenth century. Thereafter, this
movement was taken over by the rest and others and especially in Japan where temples

were restored from the end of the century (Jokilehto, 1999). Consequently, many huge
historic buildings and monuments have been successfully restored in developed
countries by the State’s initiative and support. In other words, this trend has heavily
depended on the State’s protection and budget, which are changing over the years. For
this reason, the later UNESCO Charters (Washington
2
, 1987; Mexico
3
, 1999; NARA
4
,
1994) claimed that urban conservation should be based on community involvement to
ensure a better and sustainable development toward the built heritage elements.
Therefore, urban conservation models have recently followed two different directions,
the “top- down” and “bottom- up” approach. Several typical instances show the
respective strengths and weaknesses of these two approaches. For example, the “top-
down” conservation model for the Chinatown in Singapore has increased the quality of
physical environment; however, the area faces distortions in local identity due to mass
functional conversion in using these shop houses (Sim, 1997). Similarly, George Town
and Penang in Malaysia and Hanoi in Vietnam are ancient towns facing serious
deterioration of physical environments, old buildings and infrastructural overloads due
to the State’s limited resources (Ngo, 2006- a & b). In contrast, the “bottom- up”
approach in Hoi An ancient town of Vietnam, a World Heritage site, is a great success
because the preservation process is based on a close relationship between the

2
ICOMOS, General Assembly in Washington D.C , 1987.
3
ICOMOS, General Assembly in Mexico, 1999.
4

Japan & UNESCO, The NARA Document on Authenticity, 1994.

6

indigenous communities (natives) and their built heritages (Tran, 2007) in a small area
(about 50 ha
5
). As a result, the Hoi An model actually required very little investment
and support from the State because most resources were mobilized from the
households. However, the households involved into particular and small scale
precincts and constructions with their financial self- supports. Thus, there is little
possibility to apply this model to larger ancient towns with built heritages being
utilized by different native and non- native communities.
On the other hand, cultural mapping determined by UNESCO was used as a tool to
collect data from community engagement, which identifies and records cultural
resources and elements (tangible: galleries, craft industries, distinctive landmarks,
local events; intangible: memories, personal histories, attitudes and values). The
mapping focuses more on people’s awareness (insider/ outsider) towards profound
values of known assets. On the contrary, affordance concept expresses interplay
relationship between the user and defined/undefined properties through functions
recognized of the specific environment. In protected environment of Hanoi Ancient
Quarter for instance, there are hidden functional values of the place that the local user
(insider) might be recognizable rather than outsider. Therefore, cultural mapping is
hardly applicable because this tool did not encourage community’s possibility in
shaping their place by themselves.
b. Professional level
The Venice Charter (1964) focused on current conservation concepts and attempted to
correct recurrent mistakes in restoration practice. Its main message was the
development of a critical approach to conservation and restoration of historic
monuments and relevant settings. In practice, the charter has been interpreted in


5
Internet:

7

different ways with different stresses on maintenance and care of existing original
structures with priority given to the conservation of original material. Based on the
charter, scientific tools for survey and analysis of historic structures and materials were
strongly developed. As a result, industrial production from scientific researches did not
totally replace traditional crafts and materials, causing serious incompatibility
(Jokilehto, 1999) and impacting the heritage authenticity. In addition, the Burra
Charter
6
(1979/ 1999) used the term “place” of cultural significance to indicate
“cultural heritage”, where traditional values and non- physical aspects were given
more importance than physical monuments. The guidelines concerning the place and
its settings stated that physical changes and interventions should not influence their
cultural significance. The Charter was applied to places where physical environments
and objects were well- preserved and in good conditions. Therefore, the charter was
not applicable to places, where material environments and structures had been
seriously decayed and had been restored urgently in developing countries. In my
opinion, a new term and relevant guidelines should be worked out for the conservation
of the material environments, settings and fabric of “places” in cities of developing
countries, for instance, Hanoi Ancient Quarter. The Nara Document (1994) on
authenticity expanded the Venice Charter and gave major attention to cultural diversity
and cultural specificity. It was an indicator of the general trend toward broadening the
concept of heritage resources. Each place has a different authenticity and relevant
communities have perhaps different notions of the values of the heritages and may
express their conception in a different way. I suppose that various communities are

actually not familiar with the terminology of “authenticity”. It is necessary to carry out
a “conceptual conversion”, moving from the international level to national level and

6
ICOMOS Australia, the Burra Charter 1979, revised 1999.

8

local level. So far, no study has been made on the conversion with respect to
conservation plans and programs designed to encourage community involvement.
The Washington Charter (1987) dealt with the preservation of “historic towns and
urban areas”. It laid down the principles and technological methods in conservation
planning to ensure sustainable development, continuity and the historic character of the
towns and urban areas. To this end, community involvement plays a very important
role through concrete programs related to the preservation process. In my opinion, the
Charter provides a good basis for those who work out plans for the preservation of
towns and urban areas. Due to the absence of technical guidance on how to do
conservation planning and the necessary steps to be taken, conservation work with
respect to multicultural towns and urban areas in developing countries has not been
effective. Hanoi Ancient Quarter is a typical case in point.
The Mexico Charter (1999) focused on “the built vernacular heritage”, which consisted
of tangible and intangible properties and associations shared by the community. In this
connection, community involvement, support and rights were emphasized in order to
maintain the community’s living traditions. In practice, the guidelines had suggested
fundamental methods on conserving the built heritage, the vernacular buildings, groups
of buildings or single structures and so on. But the Charter’s guidance on conservation
of both material and immaterial heritages of the community was formulated
conceptually in abstract and general terms (adaptation, replacement and restoration
etc). Indeed, it was just a weak message to both the community and local authorities on
conservation work as it did not lay any technical framework, which helps them to

define and protect the values inherent in such heritages. No technical framework or
profile guidance has been formulated to enable the community to define by itself the

9

built vernacular heritage elements and to work out an appropriate behavior for the
settings and associations.
In accordance with the Charters, many research papers, frameworks, and guidelines
have been developed. Vines (2005) put forth the 4 step guidance on assessing and
preserving the authenticity of the place beyond the general principles on revitalizing
heritage management and upgrading the historic districts and retaining the traditional
sense of place. The principles were outlined following research on various cases in
Southeast Asian towns. For instance, the “model conservation project” methods
resulted from the study of a building at no. 8, Heeren Street of Malacca Town
(Malaysia). Moreover, it was proposed that the signs on buildings should follow the
designs of the signs along street-facades in Penang, Singapore and Vietnam etc. In my
opinion, the principles and guidelines recommended were useful to the sites, where
individuals owned vernacular heritage buildings as inherited properties. Besides, the
history of the heritage concerned has been recorded and updated, to ensure the owner’s
awareness and to cause him/her to use the building and its space in an appropriate
manner. These principles may not be applicable to dissimilar cases and situations in
different institutional systems. Certainly, no further research has been conducted on
applying the general notions, guidelines and principles to community’s commitment on
preserving single “multi-ownership” heritage buildings.
Furthermore, Interpretation and Presentation of Cultural Heritage Sites (ICOMOS,
2008) figured out seven principles, to foster public awareness on protection and
conservation of cultural heritage sites through scientific and scholarly methods. The
charter covers a wide scope being applied for all objects (public, associated community
and stakeholder). It also developed general technical and professional guidelines in


10

their social context. To the scope, role of community was not stressed in developing
protection, preservation of the heritage properties by themselves.
On the other hand, Convention for safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage of
UNESCO focused on 5 aspects: (i) oral traditions and expressions; (ii) performing arts;
(iii) social practices, rituals and festive events; (iv) knowledge and practices; (v)
traditional craftsmanship. The convention emphasized on how to preserve those
intangible heritage’s kinds rather than attaching them into intangible properties (such
as relic, environment, old buildings and etc). However, there is no article indicating
relationships among intangible activities of user (communities, public) with
physical/functional places. This gap may not support community’s role in increasing
value of the cultural heritage eventually.
In addition, the Hoi An Protocols (2001) has divided into five categories of heritage
resources. The relevant ones to the research are historic urban sites and heritage
groups; and monuments, buildings and structures. Those contents have warned people
about threats (new development, urbanization, heritage deterioration and etc) and
presented tools to conservation of authenticity (both tangible and intangible).
Nevertheless, two categories did not point out to the community (main user of the
heritages) about how to engage preservation works through a ground-up approach.
In Vietnam, the law on cultural heritage included 74 articles within 7 chapters and
promulgated in 2002. There is several articles relative to conserve both tangible and
intangible cultural heritage. For instance, the article 7 affirmed the heritages found are
under population’s ownership. Furthermore, articles 15 and 16 stipulated responsibility
of the whole people in managing, protecting and preserving cultural heritages. In the
following chapters of intangible and tangible cultural heritages, articles 17, 24
encouraged all people conducting activities of studying, collecting, preserving and

11


introducing cultural heritages to nationalities’ community. In particular, article 32
defined two conservational zones I and II toward relic’s original settings and areas
surrounding the relics with such sanctions. Due to the law’s scope, these articles were
positive stipulations covering all areas to enhance protection of cultural heritages.
Therefore, to apply those and the law, some particular circulars and guidelines are
required to assist community in firstly recognizing valuable properties of the cultural
heritages to possible behaviors.
c. Case- studies in developed and developing countries
During various periods, many cities in both developed and developing countries have
applied the urban conservation approaches to particular precincts and areas for the
protection and preservation of their respective identities. As a top-down model,
Singapore is one of the examples of a country engaged in development while
continuing to conserve the historic and cultural heritage (with particular
characteristics) of a culturally-rich multiracial city-state, where live in common three
Chinese, Malayan and Indian communities. In accordance with its conservation policy,
it has apparently succeeded in preserving the urban fabric through Government
financial support in rebuilding, for example, the shop- houses, which reflected “past
modernity” (Widodo, 2003) in its Chinatown. Sim (1997) reported that functional
transformation and shift from residential use to commercial use involving more office
space has caused the new Chinatown to lose its vibrant character. Thus, Singapore has
succeeded in retaining the use value for economic, functional, tourist and political
development but has achieved much less in the conservation of emotional and cultural
values. Due to the failure to retain the residential role and the shop-house functions,
these heritage environments and areas of Singapore involve a sense of unsustainable
conservation.

12

As different from the shop-house rows in Singapore, the values of mixed shop- houses
(Hokkian Chinese & British colonial architecture) have been neglected in conservation

areas of George Town in Penang, Malaysia. Some researchers have showed that a large
number of shop- houses have been demolished to build the huge Komtar Tower
shopping complex (65 storeys) on Jalan Penang after repeal of Rent Control Act. In
making these changes, the authorities have failed to preserve and protect current
vernacular architecture. Fels (1994) has reported that local leaders sometime talked
about conservation and heritage but renovation projects only covered old public
buildings and very few models of shop-houses. Moreover, according to Alex (2006),
an area structure plan, conservation guidelines and a completed inventory of heritage
buildings had been established for the inner city. Due to Government limitations in
financial, political power and in policies, urban conservation in various areas has been
carried out on a discriminatory basis: in favor of certain elite groups. As a matter of
fact, Chinese and Indian structures are always dominant while only a small number of
Malay structures could survive. Ngo (2006- a) suggested that because of State’s
neglect, the Malay structures and their culture sooner or later may face the danger of
destruction. As a result of the top-down model, the conservation of George Town’s
cultural variety and identity cannot be sustained due to the disappearance of minority
groups, specifically the Malay one. In contrast, the successful preservation of the Han
Jiang Ancestral Temple in Penang, which won the UNESCO Asia-Pacific Heritage
Conservation prize in 2006, highlights the intervention of individuals and
organizations from the private sector, particularly the Teochew Association, one of the
strongest business groups in Penang. As the most important spiritual symbol of
migrants over time and in history, the “community-based conservation” model has
been used by the Association members in building the conservation fund which relied

13

on an “absolute trust system” of contribution (Lim, 2006). Moreover, the key persons
in the private sector, who were supposed to be the initiators of the project, are the
offsprings of Teochew migrants, and the temple was, therefore, the embodiment of
their collective memory, historic traces and cultural customs, as also their pride about

their grandfathers. This was a good conservation model resulting from an ethnic
group’s dedication to a spiritual construction. However, this was a small scale project
initiated by those who understood the values of the temple for the association over a
long the period of history. Therefore, it was not applicable to large projects owned by
different human groups and classes, who lacked a common understanding about the
buildings in need of conservation.
Unlike previous Asian cases, urban heritage conservation in Canada enjoyed
substantial interest and support from the Government as demonstrated by the
preservation of the physical environment and unique character of Winnipeg, a historic
district. A budget of CAD 500,000 was provided to the project by Heritage Canada
(Prusina, 1995) for physical rehabilitation of the heritage building and its surroundings.
In Winnipeg, the local authority played an important role as mediator (Henri, 1986)
and it set up a regulatory framework that manages the downtown zoning by means of
laws and the new construction development to protect the structures of the heritage
areas by means of design review. Besides, Bugailiskis (1993) reported that the
“heritage support policy and program” was applying particular principles to maximize
the social, cultural and economic benefits of Winnipeg’s urban heritage. The
conservation policies required a strictly synchronous institution-system (law,
management and manager) while the heritage users had positive awareness of and
behavior towards the heritage environments, as different from what happened in
developing countries where such issues were commonly problematic.

14

Conservation of wooden heritage environment in Japan is seen as another typical case
in the modern movement. The “group of traditional buildings” model has been
described by Bunji (1979) as a popular trend which pays great attention to the
architectural characteristics of their own community. He also showed that this was a
new conservation trend which enjoyed Japanese Government’s support and consisted
in moving many saved historic buildings to Meiji Village, a kind of museum near

Nagoya - for collecting and retaining the last Meiji buildings for exhibition and for
tourist development. In fact, this concept apparently ran counter to the local people’s
thinking which preferred new things and neglected old things. This model was
appropriate for groups of buildings that were similar in terms of architecture and
materials and required large government financial support, sometimes over 90% of
total expenses, for preserving physical heritage environments that have no intangible
values for the community.
In accordance with the bottom- up approach, protecting heritage buildings requires a
willingness to learn from the past and from traditions, and to develop and implement a
systematic research, which links innovation with traditions. Filippi (2005) shows that a
top-down intervention in restoration and preservation of vernacular architecture is too
expensive. Urban experts have recognized community engagement is necessary to
work out appropriate solutions for cultural heritages, a non-renewable resource, and to
avoid waste in resources due to “non-asked performances” and poor execution of
conservation projects. The problem was that there were always budget constraints,
while a large investment was required. In practice, participation usually relied on an
over 2- year- process
7
with “empowerment” of a community which must identify its

7
A face-to-face interview (2007) with the dwellers at No. 51 Hang Bac- a tube-house is preserved by project Hanoi2010, during
the field work. Nguyen M. T (2008) also highlighted more than one year for local authority- household discussion, 4 months for
temporary family- relocation and, other 8 months for the reproducible restoration. The most difficult stage was reached a
agreement due to each family’s benefit from the project. The relocation stage was raised issues because the insider was self-