Rethinking reuse of historic sites
Progress and success depend ultimately on disciplined practice day after day after day.
Historic sites also require maintenance day after day, much like taking care of an elderly person in ill health. Besides keeping their condition stable, however, if you want to improve their quality of life, you have to add some new elements.
With Taipei Story House now ten years old, Chen’s ideas about putting historic sites to new uses have also changed from what they were before.
At first she was very stubborn, and rejected turning historic sites into commercial venues run for profit. But managing a historic site is hard enough as it is, so deciding to make elegant and profound art the operational axis of Taipei Story House was piling difficulties on top of difficulties.
Except for someone like Chen, who comes fully qualified in every way, there are few people who would be able or willing to dig into their own pockets every year for NT$3–4 million to make up for financial shortfalls. This is the reason why no one has come along to follow in her footsteps and adopt a historic site as an individual. “So I’ve changed my own thinking somewhat. In the past, I was too romantic, and not practical enough. Now I’ve reversed course, and set a lowest minimum criterion.”
Chen’s minimum criterion is that it is not so important how a historic site is used just so long as it does not turn into an empty, wasted structure. Take for example the old Western-style building on “Futai Street” (now Yanping S. Road) that she also once adopted for three years. She feels it would make an ideal Japanese restaurant, with seating in the front wing and the kitchen in the back. “It would be so beautiful you would swoon.”
Chen’s change of mind can also be traced in part to the reality of the government’s faltering efforts to get the private sector to adopt historic sites. She says the value of having private citizens adopt historic sites lies in greater diversity and creativity. Each adopting organization will be different, so each site will take on its own character. But if the government does everything, with its mindset of ordering always the same types of tables, always the same kind of chairs, and so on, the result will be the “McDonalds-ization” of historic sites, with everything looking the same and no uniqueness.
A new model of corporate adoption
Are corporations willing to adopt historic sites?
As Chen understands the situation, willingness is very high, and to a big company the NT$3–4 million it would cost to maintain a historic site is chump change. What’s more, these days the shareholders of most listed companies are hip, and often raise questions at shareholders’ meetings about what the company is doing to fulfill its “corporate social responsibility.” The way things are going, every corporation will be on the lookout for a “flagship project” that it can use to burnish its image.
“The most suitable flagship projects are located in the same place as the corporation, or in the hometown of the founder. And what else besides adopting a historic site allows a company to be of service to art and culture and at the same time contribute to community development? They can even recruit employees to serve as volunteers.” The problem, says Chen, is that while getting them to come up with cash is easy, getting them to focus on management of sites is not.
The model of how a designated historic site like Taipei Story House is being put to new uses was unprecedented at the time, and remains the only example of its kind. Acknowledging reality, Chen proposes a model of “corporate sponsorship, government management.” Corporations can provide the creative input and capital, while government can handle day to day oversight, and together they can infuse old buildings with new life.
A city without old buildings is like a person with no memories, a timeline that has been clipped. Sentiment, knowledge, elegance, and people constantly coming and going—that is the kind of historic building that K.C. Chen dreams of.