University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Using the UNESCO Historic Urban Landscape framework: a case study of the Pico-Union neighborhood

(USC Thesis Other)

Using the UNESCO Historic Urban Landscape framework: a case study of the Pico-Union neighborhood

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

USING THE UNESCO HISTORIC URBAN LANDSCAPE FRAMEWORK:
A CASE STUDY OF THE PICO-UNION NEIGHBORHOOD

by

Yi Xiao

A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF HERITAGE CONSERVATION

August 2020

Copyright 2020 Yi Xiao
ii
Acknowledgements

Thank you to everyone who guided the progress of this thesis, those who have
supported my work, and those who have shaped my education at the USC School of
Architecture.
Thank you to the members of my thesis committee: Professor Trudi Sandmeier
for inspiring me to the research topic and guiding me through the project, Professor
Kathryn Horak for taking a critical eye at my writing, and Dr. Meredith Drake Reitan for
encouraging my criticism of this subject matter. You all played significant roles in
advising and supporting me through the process of writing this thesis, and your
strengths and expertise were invaluable to me.
Thank you to my family, though being thousands of kilometers away in
geographical terms, has been my source of unconditional help, encouragement and
fortitude, without which this work would have never been completed.
I extend very special thanks to my husband and love of my life, Zixing Hao, for
keeping things going and for always showing his unconditional love and how proud he is
of me. I am eternally grateful for having you in my life.

iii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................... ii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................ iv
List of Tables .................................................................................................................. v
Abstract .......................................................................................................................... vi
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 1 Concepts and Policy .................................................................................... 3
Sustainable Development and Urban Heritage Conservation ............................... 3
Heritage Conservation Policies in Los Angeles .................................................. 10
Chapter 2 Case study: Pico-Union .............................................................................. 18
Introduction .......................................................................................................... 18
Historic Context ................................................................................................... 20
Conservation Efforts ............................................................................................ 28
Chapter 3 Conservation Efficiency Evaluation .......................................................... 40
The implementation of the HUL approach ........................................................... 40
The Research and Practice of the HUL Approach .............................................. 44
Chapter 4 The application of Historic Urban Landscape Framework as
assessment system for existing conservation practices in one area ..................... 61
Actors – Who is involved in heritage management? ........................................... 62
Attributes – What is heritage? ............................................................................. 63
Values –Why do we protect and why is something considered heritage? ........... 64
Steps – How to manage heritage? ..................................................................... 66
Assessment systems based on the HUL recommendation ................................ 68
Chapter 5 Pico-Union: Discussion and Recommendation ....................................... 70
The application of the HUL assessment system in Pico-Union ........................... 70
Discussion and recommendation ........................................................................ 81
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 86
Bibliography .................................................................................................................. 88

iv
List of Figures

Figure 2.1: The location of the Pico-Union neighborhood in the City of Los Angeles. ... 18
Figure 2.2: The boundaries of conservation works in Pico-Union neighborhood ........... 19
Figure 2.3: Map of the city of Los Angeles ..................................................................... 21
Figure 2.4: Cover of The Better City magazine, 15 May 1909 ....................................... 24
Figure 2.5: Cox and Sanders index map of Los Angeles City ........................................ 25
Figure 2.6: The documented resources in CRA/LA Redevelopment Plan Survey ......... 30
Figure 2.7: The streetscape of the Alvarado Terrace Historic District ............................ 31
Figure 2.8: The conservation of Alvarado Terrace District ............................................. 32
Figure 2.9: The streetscape of the Bonnie Brae Street Historic District ......................... 33
Figure 2.10: The National Register of Historic District of South Bonnie Brae Tract ...... 34
Figure 2.11: The Pico-Union HPOZ ............................................................................... 35
Figure 2.12: The SurveyLA documentation method and process .................................. 38
Figure 2.13: The SurveyLA work in Pico-Union ............................................................. 39
Figure 3.1. The yearly publication number that using the HUL Recommendation ......... 45
Figure 3.2: Geological distribution of the one hundred and sixty cities which participated
in the activities related to the implementation of the HUL approach .............................. 46
Figure 3.3: The interface of www.visualising Ballarat.org.au with the map of present
Ballarat and property built data from 1940 to 2005. ...................................................... 50
Figure 3.4: Ballarat East community map ...................................................................... 51
Figure 3.5: Children’s expression of Cuenca ................................................................. 56
Figure 3.6: Poster of Visionary Conference Cuenca in 2015 ......................................... 56
Figure 4.1: The four questions for the analysis of the 2011 UNESCO Recommendation
on HUL ........................................................................................................................... 62
Figure 5.1: Houses in the Alvarado Terrace District ....................................................... 74

v
List of Tables

Chart 4.1: The answers of who is involved in heritage management ............................. 63
Chart 4.2: The answers of what is heritage .................................................................... 64
Chart 4.3: The answers of why we protect and why is something considered heritage . 66
Chart 4.4: The answers of how to manage heritage ...................................................... 68
Chart 4.5: The assessment framework of the efficiency of local conservation efforts
based on the HUL approach .......................................................................................... 69
Chart 5.1: The result of the assessment of the Pico-Union’s local conservation efforts in
the aspect of actors ........................................................................................................ 73
Chart 5.2: The result of the assessment of the Pico-Union’s local conservation efforts in
the aspect of attributes ................................................................................................... 75
Chart 5.3: The result of the assessment of the Pico-Union’s local conservation efforts in
the aspect of values ....................................................................................................... 77
Chart 5.4: The result of the assessment of the Pico-Union’s local conservation efforts in
the aspect of steps ......................................................................................................... 81
Chart 5.5: The performance of local conservation efforts in Pico-Union based on the
HUL approach ................................................................................................................ 82
Chart 5.6: The assessment framework of the efficiency of local conservation efforts in
Pico-Union based on the HUL approach ........................................................................ 85

vi
Abstract

Using the UNESCO Historic Urban Landscape framework, this study will assess
the conservation efforts of Los Angeles’ Pico-Union neighborhood. In 2011, UNESCO
adopted the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) recommendation and called for the
application of a landscape approach to ensure the integration of cultural heritage
conservation and management concerns in the wider goals of sustainable urban
development. The 2011 HUL Recommendation provides a comprehensive toolkit to
guide planning decisions and manage change.
Pico-Union is a neighborhood with layers of history and diverse social and
cultural values, primarily inhabited by low-income and multi-ethnic groups and suffering
from the effects of long-term disinvestment. With the rapid redevelopment of Downtown
Los Angeles, its geographical advantage and underdeveloped state made Pico-Union a
target for future development. To help achieve sustainable development in the area, it is
important to recognize the significant cultural heritage of the neighborhood and to
assess the efficiency of existing conservation efforts. This thesis will use the HUL
framework to evaluate the existing tools to conserve the neighborhood character of
Pico-Union.

1
Introduction
The relationship between urban development and urban heritage is an important
part of the heritage conservation discourse. Urban heritage is seen as an obstruction to
urban development while development pressures are perceived as threatening to
heritage resources. However, modern theories are reevaluating the impact of urban
heritage conservation as a facilitator for economic activities and urban development and
as a tool to attract investment and development.
The fight between conservation and development has kept academics and
professionals in the heritage field busy. In this context, many theories and practices
have been developed to balance the relationship between conservation and
development and to integrate these two. In 2011, UNESCO created the
Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) to promote a new approach
to heritage management. This approach provides both theoretical principles as well as
step-by-step guidance on implementation in a local context. This approach is
strengthened by its feature of adaptability. While the HUL approach is an international
conservation guideline, its tools and suggested steps are flexible and can be adjusted to
local policies. The main aim of this thesis is to use the HUL approach as a framework to
deepen the understanding of current conservation efforts and perceive the potential
improvements of existing conservation. In doing so, this research focuses the analysis
of different conservation efforts in one area, revealing the relationships between local
and international guidelines. Such comparison is intended to contribute to the
discussion on the implementation of the historic urban landscape approach and the
reflection of local urban heritage conservation.
This thesis begins with the introduction of important concepts and policies. To
reveal the contribution of the HUL approach, a literature review and a content analysis
of a set of conservation efforts in Los Angeles were conducted. Chapter one presents
the history of sustainable development and urban heritage management and the origin
of the HUL approach. Urban landscape conservation polices in Los Angeles include the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources
(CRHR), Los Angeles Historic Preservation Overlay Zone (HPOZ), SurveyLA, and
2
Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles (CRA/LA). Their
development history and practice processes are also introduced in Chapter one.
Chapter two examines the case study area, Pico-Union. This chapter addresses
the history of Pico-Union from the establishment of Los Angeles to its recent
development. The social and cultural transformations behind history are also included in
this chapter. Chapter two analyzes conservation efforts conducted in Pico-Union,
including the CRA/LA renewal projects from 1970 to 2012, the NRHP in the 1980s, the
HPOZ in 2004, and SurveyLA in 2014.
Chapter three examines the implementation of the four tools and six steps
proposed in the HUL approach. And the current application situation of the HUL
approach all over the world including researches and real-world practices. Ballarat
Australia, Cuenca Ecuador, and the United States of America are analyzed as case
studies to illuminate how to integrate the HUL approach and existing conservation
policies.
Chapter four looks at the development of the assessment system based on the
Historic Urban Landscape framework. This chapter summarizes the HUL approach as
four essential questions with defined attributes. Those four questions explained both the
concept and the implementation of the HUL approach.
Chapter five examines the application of the assessment system in the Pico-
Union case study. The conservation efforts in Pico-Union, CRA/LA, NRHP, HPOZ, and
SurveyLA are compared based on the assessment system to evaluate which criteria
suggested in the HUL approach have been achieved. Based on the results, the
similarities, differences, strengths, and weaknesses of the four conservation tools are
analyzed.

3
Chapter 1 Concepts and Policy

Sustainable Development and Urban Heritage Conservation
Sustainable Development
From the late twentieth century, sustainable development grew in importance for
the international community due to rapid urbanization, climate change, economic
integration, increasing demographic density, and ongoing developments and
globalization. The concept of sustainability and sustainable development was firstly
introduced in the Brundtland Report, “Our Common Future” in 1987. In its definition,
sustainable development is “a process aimed at achieving environmental, economic and
social improvement, both locally and globally… in order to meet the needs of the
present generation, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
own needs.”
1
After the notion of sustainability and sustainable development emerged in
the 1980s, hundreds of definitions, interpretations, and criteria have been given to
achieve a more comprehensive goal and methodology. Initially, the concept of
sustainable development was applied in environment and ecology to highlight the
necessity of controlling earth resources consumption and reducing pollution. In the
1990s, pioneering social scientists and economists started to explore the definition of
sustainable development to include social and economic values.
2
They emphasized
society’s capability to build a more desirable future that respects its inherent nature,
preserving diversity and promoting social unity.
3
Considering the pluralism in the
concept of sustainable development, this thesis follows the most commonly used
definition by Vries and Petersen:
Sustainable Development is a quest for developing and sustaining “qualities of
life.” In this way, it encompasses the subjective and objective dimensions of
human well-being, inviting a truly transdisciplinary approach. Thus, people should
act here and now in such a way that the conditions for a (decent/high) quality of

1
United Nations, Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and
Development—Brundtland Report (United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 1987).
2
Bert J.M. de Vries and Arthur C. Petersen, “Conceptualizing Sustainable Development: An Assessment
Methodology Connecting Values, Knowledge, Worldviews and Scenarios: An Assessment Methodology
Connecting Values, Knowledge, Worldviews and Scenarios” Ecological Economics 68, no. 4 (February
15, 2009): 1006–1019.
3
Walter W. Kropp and James K. Lein, “Research Articles: Scenario Analysis for Urban Sustainability
Assessment: A Spatial Multicriteria Decision-Analysis Approach,” Environmental Practice 15, no. 2 (June
1, 2013): 133–46, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1466046613000045.
4
life later and elsewhere will not be eroded. The nexus between sustainability and
quality of life is the degree to which developing and/or maintaining a quality of life
for a given (human) population has consequences which impair the options for
developing and/or maintaining an aspired quality of life, later and/or elsewhere.
Continuation and allocation are, thus, keywords around the kernel of the ends–
means field of tension.
4

Now, more than eighty percent of humans live in cities, so the quality and
character of the urban environment is a critical concern for decision makers at
international and local levels.
5
The sustainable development of our cities requires a
well-planned “continuation and allocation” of urban resources.
6
Urban heritage can be
defined as both historic buildings and sites with historic values and the social and
cultural activities people practice in a city. Urban heritage as essential elements of the
urban environment provides an exceptional opportunity for sustainable development.
One the one hand, urban areas with rich historic resources are usually ideal places for
economic development because urban heritage can be easily used as the attractions of
tourism or gentrification.
7
On the other hand, urban heritage represents the history and
traditions of a specific area, which is a non-renewable social and cultural repository.
Because of the value and possibilities within urban heritage, they play a vital role in
sustainable urban development. How to continue the values contained in urban heritage
is one of the central issues for urban planners, conservators, and policy decision
makers.

Urban Heritage Conservation
The modern concept of urban heritage conservation was developed in the mid-
nineteenth century, in response to the demolition of monuments and vernacular

4
Bert J.M. de Vries and Arthur C. Petersen, “Conceptualizing Sustainable Development: An Assessment
Methodology Connecting Values, Knowledge, Worldviews and Scenarios,” Ecological Economics 68, no.
4 (February 15, 2009): 1006–1019.
5
Francesco Bandarin and Ron Van Oers, The Historic Urban Landscape: Managing Heritage in an Urban
Century (Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012), 3.
6
Ana Pereira Roders and Francesco Bandarin, Reshaping Urban Conservation: The Historic Urban
Landscape Approach in Action (Springer Singapore, 2019), 4.
7
Ibid., 4.
5
buildings in Europe.
8
Because of the Industrial Revolution and modernization, many
European countries developed policies and plans to clear underdeveloped parts of the
city or to demolish the inner city.
9
. The most representative case is the Grands Travaux
planned by Baron Haussmann for the city of Paris during 1850 and 1870.
10
To meet the
demands of modern life, especially those created by the increasing influence of the
automobile, Haussmann redesigned Paris to create a more unified and beautiful city
with broad boulevards, new commercial space, and stronger military control. Other
versions of this large-scale redevelopment were applied in cities across the world, such
as Rome, Cairo, Teheran, Sofia and Istanbul. The Haussmann model continued to
influence the urban redevelopment in many cities. One of the most representative case
is the work of Robert Moses in 1950s New York. Like Haussmann, Robert Moses
practiced a lot of large-scale planned development and slum clearance projects, such
as the construction of parks, highways, bridges, and tunnels.
Opposite to the deconstruction brought by the modernization, many intellectuals
viewed the monuments of the past as critical resources for social and cultural
development. The most renowned early preservationists include Eugène Viollet-Le-Duc
in France and John Ruskin and William Morris in England. They argued for the critical
value of individual monuments and the historic city as a means of promoting national
identity.
11
While these early conservation efforts focused on the protection of isolated
heritage and broader theories of urban conservation were not yet generated, the
contributions of these early conservationists laid the groundwork of modern-day urban
conservation.
At the end of the nineteenth century, urban planners, architects, and planning
theoreticians started to pay attention to the protection of vernacular architecture and the
broader context of monuments.
12
One such representative urban thinker was the

8
Francesco Siravo, “Conservation Planning: The Road Less Traveled,” The GCI Newsletter, 26(2),
accessed March 11, 2019,
http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/newsletters/26_2/feature.html.
9
Francesco Bandarin and Ron Van Oers, The Historic Urban Landscape: Managing Heritage in an Urban
Century (Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012), 3.
10
Ibid., 5.
11
Ibid., 6.
12
Sophia Labadi, Urban Heritage, Development and Sustainability: International Frameworks, National
and Local Governance (Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2015), 3.
6
Austrian architect Camillo Sitte, who believed that the historic city can be perceived as
an aesthetic entity through urban morphologies.
13
In his book City Planning according to
Artistic Principles, Sitte viewed the city as a historical continuum and an aesthetic model
that should be understood through its morphology, typology, and socio-economic
context. He also criticized the uniform grid plans which are detached from the history of
urban development.
14
His theory opened a new possibility of urban development. And
his thinking and practices inspired a lot of urban conservation projects in Europe during
the 1990s.
At the same time, a well-known Scottish biologist, socialist, and planner, Patrick
Geddes, viewed the city from another perspective. He saw the city as an organism
which interweaved urban development and heritage conservation. Affected by
Darwinism and the idea of evolution, Geddes believed that every generation contributed
to the city’s appearance by adding, changing, or demolishing physical elements. To take
care of the city, people should understand what happened before through the survey of
environmental, economic, social, and cultural background.
15
Connected with his
integrated approach to understand a city, Geddes also put forward the idea of
“conservative surgery.” Through the process of “surgery,” historic buildings and
landscapes can be adapted to modern requirement and the deconstruction of historic
resources will be reduced. He believed in the conservation of a city as an integral whole
and any new development should embody in the city as a continuation, a way of
evolution.
16
This harmonious integration of new development and historic urban
environment significant influenced modern conservation, urban design, and planning.
His thinking and works played an influential role in inspiring UNESCO’s 2011
publication, Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape.
17

After the Second World War, the demolition of historic urban areas was prevalent
all over the world in response to growing automobile ownership, urban population

13
Françoise Choay, The Modern City: Planning in the 19th Century (New York, N.Y.: George
Braziller,1970).
14
Camillo Sitte, City Planning According to Artistic Principles (New York: Random House,1965).
15
Volker Welter, Biopolis: Patrick Geddes and the City of Life (Mass: MIT Press, 2002).
16
Patrick Geddes, Cities in Evolution; an Introduction to the Town Planning Movement and to the Study of
Civics (London: Williams & Norgate, 1915).
17
Loes Veldpaus, Ana R Pereira Roders, and Bernard J F Colenbrander, “Urban Heritage: Putting the
Past into the Future,” The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice, 4:1 (2013): 3-18.
7
growth due to rural-urban migration flows, and intensive urban redevelopment.
18
Facing
slum clearance and urban renewal programs, conservators, architects, and planners
realized the significance of protecting historic urban resources and initiated activities to
safeguard urban heritage during this rapid transformational period. Under their efforts,
many conservation movements, and governmental and non-governmental organizations
emerged all around the world to protect urban heritage. The establishment of UNESCO
in 1945 laid the foundation of an international context for the future discussion of urban
heritage conservation and the link between heritage and sustainable development.
19

Accordingly, a series of international conferences and charters were created to frame
and promote the issue of urban conservation and sustainable development. The 1962
UNESCO report, Recommendations Concerning the Safeguarding of the Beauty and
Character of Landscapes and Sites primarily draws attention to man-made landscapes,
especially urban landscapes.
20
And the 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of
the World Cultural and Natural Heritage is a far-sighted document that considers the
impact of unsustainable development on natural and cultural heritage.
21
In the initial
stages, there were no direct efforts on urban conservation, but rather, UNESCO
categorized it within the realm of natural or cultural conservation in general. It was not
until 1976, with the adoption of UNESCO’s Recommendation Concerning the
Safeguarding and Contemporary Role of Historic Areas that a text for urban
conservation was created.
22
This document not only established the definition of historic
areas and general guidelines for urban conservation, but also laid out detailed principles
for conservation practices. However, the limits of the time showed in the document as
the lack of considerations about the rapid social and economic transformation in the
future decades, such as gentrification and the impacts of the tourism industry.
Urban conservation is now one of the essential components of future planning
and development.
23
All cities are shaped by complex layers of history. Each layer

18
Robert Freestone, “Urban Planning in a Changing World,” The Twentieth century Experience (London:
Spon Press, 2000).
19
Labadi, Urban Heritage, Development and Sustainability.
20
Bandarin and Van Oers, The Historic Urban Landscape.
21
Labadi, Urban Heritage, Development and Sustainability.
22
Bandarin and Van Oers, The Historic Urban Landscape.
23
Ibid.
8
represents a city’s historical period, a cultural expression, an economic accumulation,
an adaptation to the natural environment, and a technological achievement. These
layers interact with each other and result in a unique invention, an urban landscape.
Each urban landscape reflects the unique material and social life of humankind.
24

Historic urban areas have abundant and diverse resources and heritage which are
shaped by generations and establish a representation of people’s endeavors in their
lives. However, urban development and globalization have changed the essence of
many historic urban districts. They have had significant impacts on the character and
value of communities. Urbanization offers opportunities for economic, social, and
cultural development which can improve the quality of life. At the same time,
unmanaged growth in urban density and construction can degrade the feeling of
attachment to the urban fabric, and the identity of communities. Given the complex and
fast-growing trends of globalization, the historic part of a city is no longer a redundant
section of urban landscape, but a potential resource that can respond to new needs,
express advanced physical and social patterns, and reflect centuries of accumulation of
human interaction with urban spaces.
25

To manage the tensions between urban conservation and development, the
UNESCO 2005 Vienna Memorandum on World Heritage and Contemporary
Architecture – Managing the Historic Urban Landscape was adopted as a new chapter
of urban heritage conservation. It was with this memorandum that the idea of Historic
Urban Landscapes was first proposed:
The historic urban landscape, building on the 1976 “UNESCO Recommendation
concerning the Safeguarding and Contemporary Role of Historic Areas,” refers to
ensembles of any group of buildings, structures and open spaces, in their natural
and ecological context, including archaeological and palaeontological sites,
constituting human settlements in an urban environment over a relevant period of
time, the cohesion and value of which are recognized from the archaeological,
architectural, prehistoric, historic, scientific, aesthetic, socio-cultural or ecological
point of view. This landscape has shaped modern society and has great value for
our understanding of how we live today.
26

24
Francesco Bandarin and Ron van Oers, Reconnecting the City: The Historic Urban Landscape
Approach and the Future of Urban Heritage (Chichester, West Sussex, United Kingdom : John Wiley &
Sons Inc., 2015), xiv.
25
Ibid.
26
Ibid.
9
The 2005 Vienna Memorandum looked beyond the traditional way of preserving
physical historic fabric and outlined the integration of new development and historic
urban landscape. It aroused vast debate among scholars and practitioners about the
more accurate and comprehensive definition of this idea and the practical tools for
global and local agencies.
Eventually, UNESCO drafted the Recommendation on the Historic Urban
Landscape (HUL) in 2011 to systematically express a new historic urban area
conservation approach which aimed to balance conservation and development. The
document defined Historic Urban Landscape as follows:
Historic Urban Landscape is the urban area understood as the result of a historic
layering of cultural and natural values and attributes, extending beyond the
notion of “historic centre” or “ensemble” to include the broader urban context and
its geographical setting.
27

The broader context refers to both tangible and intangible value of a site, including
natural features such as topography, geomorphology and hydrology; built environment
such as buildings, infrastructure, open spaces and designed landscapes; land use and
spatial organization; perceptions; and other elements. This definition builds a foundation
for a comprehensive and integrated approach for identifying, evaluating, conserving,
and managing historic urban resources within an overall sustainable development
framework.
28
As a conservation approach, the 2011 Recommendation on the Historic
Urban Landscape is used to improve the productivity and sustainability of urban spaces,
while conserving and enhancing the socio-cultural diversity and quality of urban life.
“This approach supports communities in their quest for development and adaptation,
while retaining the characteristics and values linked to their history and collective
memory, and to the environment.”
29
The policies of the historic urban landscape
approach provides mechanisms that balance conservation and sustainability in the short
and long terms. In practice, the approach is based the cooperation between government

27
Ibid.
28
Ibid.
29
“Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape,” United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, created 10 November 2011,
https://whc.unesco.org/uploads/activities/documents/activity-638-98.pdf.
10
agencies, public and private stakeholders, national and international organizations and
the public.
30

In addition to theoretical assumption and policies, the HUL approach provides a
toolkit for the implementation of a comprehensive landscape approach for cultural
heritage management. The international community of practitioners categorized four
main types of tools that can help supporting heritage management in contemporary and
dynamic urban contexts: civic engagement tools, knowledge and planning tools,
regulatory systems, and financial tools. Francesco Bandarin, UNESCO Assistant
Director-General for Culture, stated that the 2011 UNESCO Recommendation on the
Historic Urban Landscape is “a milestone document aimed at redefining the role of
urban heritage in society, and parameters to be used in managing its conservation,
evolution, and integration within the broader urban decision-making process.”
31

Heritage Conservation Policies in Los Angeles
In the United States, the city of Los Angeles is an ideal place to study the
effectiveness of conservation efforts from different governmental levels and different
periods. Among the many urban heritage conservation efforts practiced in the city, this
research will focus on the conservation of a historic district or a section of city. This
chapter will summarize conservation registration programs at the federal, state, and
local level and the local agencies that have historically been involved in conservation
efforts in Pico-Union. Registration programs include the National Register of Historic
Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), and the Los
Angeles Historic Preservation Overlay Zone (HPOZ). The Department of City Planning’s
Office of Historic Resources, which manages the SurveyLA program, and the
Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles (CRA/LA) are local
agencies who have historically administered conservation efforts in Pico-Union. Note
that the local Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument program is an importation local
conservation effort but not covered in this study, because its main focus is on the

30
Ibid.
31
Bandarin and Van Oers, Reconnecting the City, 45.
11
individual resources instead of using districts or communities as the units of
conservation.
The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)
The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), authorized by the 1966
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), is the United States’ official list of historic
resources deemed worthy of preserving. The National Park Service (NPS), under the
Department of the Interior, takes charge of the administration of the NRHP, including
identifying, evaluating, and, in some cases, protecting listed resources.
32
These
resources include districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in
American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. The NRHP
preserves irreplaceable heritage that represents the spirit, character, and identity of
America. The primary objectives of NRHP are to “foster a national preservation ethic,
promote a greater appreciation of America’s heritage, and increase and broaden the
public’s understanding and appreciation of historic places.”
33

To be listed on the NRHP, a property must meet the National Register Criteria for
Evaluation, which includes aspects of age, significance, and integrity.
34
Generally
speaking, a property needs to be more than fifty years old to be designated, and the
evaluation criteria for designation include a property’s association with events that are
important in America history; or the lives of significant figures in the past; or distinctive
characteristic of certain type of construction or work of a master; or potential discovery
of historic and prehistoric information. In addition to eligibility criteria, seven criteria
considerations were provided as a supplement for exceptional situations.
35

Additional to significance, integrity is also required for designation. There are
seven aspects that are used to weigh a resource’s integrity: location, design, setting,
materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. These seven aspects physically

32
“What Is the National Register of Historic Places?" The National Park Service, accessed January 23,
2019, https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/what-is-the-national-register.htm.
33
The National Park Service, “Chapter 2 National Register Criteria for Evaluation” in National Register of
Historic Places Brochure, 2002, https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/brochure/.
34
“How to List a Property?” The National Park Service, accessed January 23, 2019,
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/how-to-list-a-property.htm.
35
The National Park Service, “Chapter 2 National Register Criteria for Evaluation” in National Register of
Historic Places Brochure, 2002, https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/brochure/.
12
represent why, where and when a property is important. In other words, they examine
whether or not the property retains the identity which makes it significant.
The NRHP provides a federal standard for evaluating and documenting historic
resources. Through the process and result of designation, the government,
professionals, and the public can understand the significance of historic properties;
manage new development in historic areas; stabilize and increase the economic value
of old buildings; encourage redevelopment projects; and appreciate the living
environment of local communities.

California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR)
In 1975, the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) was officially
established within the offices of the Director of California State Parks, following the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.
36
OHP has the responsibility to administer
and implement preservation programs in California. The State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO) is the chief of the OHP and Executive Secretary to the State Historical
Resources Commission. The OHP is mandated by federal law and has the ability to
conduct systematic surveys; nominate eligible properties to the National Register;
manage preservation planning; provide consultation regarding Section 106 review;
review applications for federal rehabilitation tax credits and make recommendation to
the National Park Service; certify local governments’ preservation programs; and
provide the public with information, training, and assistance related to preservation
issues.
37

The California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) includes “buildings,
sites, structures, objects and districts significant in the architectural, engineering,
scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals
of California.”
38
It has generally the same four evaluation criteria as the National
Register. Additionally, it has some degree of protection for eligible resources under the

36
“About the Office of Historic Preservation,” California State Parks, accessed January 25, 2019,
https://www.parks.ca.gov/.
37
Norman Tyler, Ted J. Ligibel, and Ilene R. Tyler, Historic Preservation: An Introduction to Its History,
Principles, and Practice, 2nd edition (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009).
38
“California Historical Resources,” California State Parks, accessed January 25, 2019,
https://www.parks.ca.gov/.
13
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The OHP administers additional tools
available for the protection of historical resources in California, such as the Mills Act
Property Tax Abatement Program and the State Historic Building Code for qualified
historic properties.

Los Angeles Historic Preservation Overlay Zone (HPOZ)
Los Angeles Historic Preservation Overlay Zones (HPOZs) are areas that are
designated as containing historic resources with historic, architectural, cultural or
aesthetic values. These resources may include buildings, structures, landscapes,
natural features or other significant sites. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
empowered local governments to establish preservation agencies. With the goal of
identifying and protecting historic districts with distinct architectural and cultural
character, Los Angeles City Council adopted the ordinance that enabled the creation of
HPOZs in 1979. Angelino Heights was designated as the city’s first HPOZ in September
1983.
39

The Los Angeles Department of City Planning’s Office of Historic Resources
(OHR) is responsible for establishing and administering all HPOZs. Every HPOZ
neighborhood has its specific ordinance and preservation plan which is tailored from the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation while also meeting the unique
requirements, character, and conditions of the district. Within an HPOZ, properties are
categorized as contributors and non-contributors. Contributors are properties that were
built during the period of significance and retain most of their historic character. Even if
some of the features have changed, a property may still be considered as contributing if
it retains enough of its historic character. Properties outside the period of significance or
those that have been so altered that they no longer retain integrity are called non-
contributors. The review process for contributors is more rigid than non-contributors:
major work to contributors requires a “Certificate of Appropriateness.” For non-

39
“About the HPOZ Program," City of Los Angeles Office of Historic Resources, accessed January 25,
2019, https://preservation.lacity.org/hpoz/homepage/about-hpoz-program.
14
contributors, the review process is more flexible. A “Certificate of Compatibility” permit is
required for demolition, building replacement, or new building construction.
40

The local level of historic preservation designation and review is the real
protective power for historic resources.
41
And the HPOZs are among the city’s most
robust preservation tools. The designation of HPOZ can effectively control construction
and inappropriate alteration to exterior architectural character of neighborhoods. Similar
to designation under federal or state programs, the properties in the historic district tend
to have a higher tax rate than similar ones outside designated district.
42
But contributors
qualify for property tax reduction under the Mills Act, which is an economic incentive for
conservation. Greater investment also tends to be attracted to the designated
neighborhood, such as cultural tourism and commercial activities. Additionally, HPOZ
designation can help promote community engagement and a sense of place. It offers an
opportunity for neighborhoods to get together around a common source of pride: the
history, character, and identity of a neighborhood.

SurveyLA
SurveyLA is a comprehensive citywide survey project that identifies and
documents significant historic resources in Los Angeles. In 2001, the Getty Research
Institute released the Los Angeles Historic Resources Survey Assessment Project,
which is the predecessor of SurveyLA. In 2006, the City of Los Angeles officially
launched SurveyLA with $2.5 million grant from the J. Paul Getty Trust and technical
and advisory support from the Getty Research Institute. The survey is managed by the
Department of City Planning’s Office of Historic Resources.
43
It covers over 880,000
legal parcels within around 500 square miles. The surveyed resources include buildings,
structures, natural features, cultural landscapes, and districts dated from 1850 to 1980.
Surveyed resources reflect the city’s growth in architecture, urban planning, social

40
“HPOZ Living, A Guide to Los Angeles’ Historic Preservation Overlay Zones”, Office of Historic
Resources, City of Los Angeles, accessed January 25, 2019,
https://preservation.lacity.org/sites/default/files/HPOZLivingPamphlet.pdf.
41
Tyler, Ligibel, and Tyler. Historic Preservation.
42
Ibid.
43
Ken Bernstein and Janet Hansen, “SurveyLA: Linking Historic Resources Surveys to Local Planning,”
Journal of the American Planning Association 82, no. 2 (April 2, 2016): 88–91,
https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2015.1137199.
15
memory, ethnic culture, and others. From 2010 to 2017, the field surveys were
completed in three phases by Community Plan Area.
44

SurveyLA serves as the primary planning tool to identify, record, and evaluate
historic properties. It identified potential historic resources that are eligible for local
designation and listing in the CRHR and NRHP. The survey data provides baseline
information for future planning project and decision-making. After the identification of
valuable historic resources, the Department of City Planning is in the process of
initiating updated Community Plans to outline more specific and detailed guidance on
potential land uses. Planners can consider the effects of proposed changes to
communities’ historic resources in order to make more reasonable and sustainable
decisions. The data collected by the survey also plays a vital role in zoning decisions
and environmental review. The survey is not only beneficial for professionals, but also a
booster for the local economy. Cultural tourism business can use this data to develop
more tourist destinations, and the film industry can discover more interesting film
locations. The communities, at the same time, will receive investment and recognition
for its historic and cultural resources.
45

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles (CRA/LA)
After World War II, Urban Renewal programs began to act across the country in
response to the decline of inner-city neighborhoods. They attempted to rehabilitate the
distressed districts through slum clearance and redevelopment projects.
46
This
redevelopment movement began in California in 1945 with California’s Community
Redevelopment Law. The law empowered cities and counties to create redevelopment
agencies that would be responsible for improvement, rehabilitation, redevelopment
plans. Under this Law, the City of Los Angeles established the Community
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles (CRA/LA) in 1948 to eliminate blight

44
“Project Description,” City of Los Angeles Office of Historic Resources, accessed January 25, 2019,
https://preservation.lacity.org/survey/description.
45
“Why a Citywide Survey?" City of Los Angeles Office of Historic Resources, accessed January 25,
2019, https://preservation.lacity.org/survey/why.
46
William J. Collins and Katharine L. Shester, “Slum Clearance and Urban Renewal in the United States,”
American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 5, no. 1 (January 1, 2013): 239–273.
16
and slums throughout the city.
47
CRA/LA was once the largest redevelopment agency in
the state and had a profound impact on the city’s physical, economic, and social
environment. In the 1970s, the focus of CRA/LA moved away from slum clearance to
community development and economic growth.
48
Rather than the aggressive demolition
and elimination of distressed areas in the 1950s and the 1960s, the CRA/LA of the
1970s and 1980s emphasized integrated redevelopment, such as to attract private
investment, rehabilitate old houses, finance local commercial development, improve
streetscapes and promote public programs and activities.
49
Gradually, CRA/LA took on
a vital role in community development with its efforts in affordable housing, social justice
and equity, and environmental sustainability. In 2012, all of California’s redevelopment
agencies were officially eliminated, including the Community Redevelopment Agency of
the City of Los Angeles (CRA/LA).
50

The attitude of CRA/LA toward old buildings changed between its inception in
1948 and elimination in 2012. From an agency focused on the demolition of older
neighborhoods to the main force for historic preservation in Los Angeles, CRA/LA
boosted the historic resources rehabilitation and neighborhood conservation activities in
Los Angeles. Additionally, the agency conducted historic resources surveys in 1990s
and 2000s. A large number of historic buildings and districts were identified by the
surveys.
51
In 1991, CRA/LA adopted a comprehensive Neighborhood Conservation
Strategy to preserve historic and culturally significant properties. This strategy was
updated four times to meet its emphases on the connection between historic building
rehabilitation and future community development. Although redevelopment agencies in

47
Eric Gordon, The Urban Spectator: American Concept Cities from Kodak to Google (Lebanon:
Dartmouth College Press, 2010), 129.
48
Cecilia Estolano, “Sustainable Growth with Equity in Practice: The Example of Community
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles,” Toward a 21st Century City for All: Progressive
Policies for New York City in 2013 and Beyond, accessed January 26, 2019,
https://www.gc.cuny.edu/Page-Elements/Academics-Research-Centers-Initiatives/Centers-and-
Institutes/Center-for-Urban-Research/CUR-research-initiatives/Toward-a-21st-Century-City-for-All.
49
“About Us,” Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, accessed January 26, 2019,
http://www.crala.org/internet-site/About/who_we_are.cfm.
50
Andrew Robert Goodrich, “Heritage Conservation in Post-Redevelopment Los Angeles: Evaluating the
Impact of the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles (CRA/LA) on the Historic
Built Environment” (Master Thesis, University of Southern California, 2012).
51
Kathryn Welch Howe, The Los Angeles Historic Resource Survey Report: a Framework for a Citywide
Historic Resource Survey (Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute, 2008).
17
California were eliminated in 2012, the CRA/LA has been gradually transferring its land
use control to the Los Angeles Department of City Planning, with final transfer at the
end of 2019. Now all CRA/LA historic resources surveys are held by (and used by) the
city’s Office of Historic Resources.

18
Chapter 2 Case study: Pico-Union
52

Introduction
Pico-Union is a neighborhood located directly adjacent to Downtown Los
Angeles. It is centered on the intersection of Pico Boulevard and Union Avenue, which
is where its name comes from. The area is bordered by Olympic Boulevard on the
north, the Harbor I-110 Freeway on the east, the Santa Monica I-10 Freeway on the
south, and Hoover Street on the west. (Figure 2.1) Due to its proximity to the historic
city center, the community is one of the oldest residential neighborhoods in Los
Angeles. Initially developed by affluent families in the late nineteenth century, it has
been home to successive waves of immigrants. Pico-Union’s built environment has
been changed by multiple generations of inhabitants and forms a unique urban
landscape in Los Angeles.

Figure 2.1: The location of the Pico-Union neighborhood in the City of Los Angeles, by the author. Base
map downloaded from the Mapbox in February 2019.

The heritage conservation story of Pico-Union began with early redevelopment
projects. In 1970, the CRA/LA launched a renewal project in the neighborhood and

52
The researched neighborhood is referenced as both Pico-Union and Pico Union. For the purpose of this
thesis, Pico-Union will be the name of the researched area.
Pico-Union
19
officially named the community as “Pico-Union.”
53
The redevelopment projects mostly
ended in 2012, although part of it still active. In the 1980s, two small areas were listed in
the National Register as historic districts for their distinctive architectural quality and
development pattern. In 2004, portions of the community were designated an Historic
Preservation Overlay Zone, which consists of three unconnected areas. The HPOZ
covered a broad area of the neighborhood, and SurveyLA documented significant
resources in the rest of the community in 2014. This chapter will outline the historic
context of the development of Pico-Union and will introduce the conservation efforts in
the neighborhood. (Figure 2.2)

Figure 2.2: The boundaries of conservation works in Pico-Union neighborhood, by the author. Base map
downloaded frome4 Google Earth in February 2019.

53
“Pico Union Layers of History,” Los Angeles Conservancy. accessed January 30, 2019,
https://www.laconservancy.org/sites/default/files/files/resources/PicoUnion_Tour_new.pdf.
20
Historic Context
El Pueblo de Los Angeles
In 1781, El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles (the village of Our
Lady the Queen of the Angels) was founded by the Spanish Governor Felipe de Neve
on the banks of the Los Angeles River.
54
The pueblo included a central plaza and the
surrounding thirty-six square miles. The approximate boundaries of the pueblo are
currently Hoover Street on the west, Fountain Avenue on the north, Exposition
Boulevard on the south, and Indiana Street on the east. Pico-Union lies within the
boundary of El Pueblo de Los Angeles.
55
Designed according to the Laws of the Indies,
the land of the original pueblo was laid out at a 45 degree angle skewed from cardinal
directions.
56
The Spanish governors divided the outskirts into solares and suertes to
meet the common use and for newcomers.
57
Soon, Los Angeles attracted even more
colonists and the city prospered beyond expectations. In the 1830s, Los Angeles
became the largest settlement in California with about one thousand inhabitants. In
1835, the pueblo was proclaimed a city of Mexico.
58
The Mexican Governors of Alta
California encouraged people to apply for land ownership and soon, large part of the
land was divided and acquired as “ranchos.”

54
Robert M. Fogelson, The Fragmented Metropolis: Los Angeles, 1850-1930 (University of California
Press, 1993).
55
“Pico Union Preservation Plan. Pdf,” Los Angeles City Planning, accessed January 29, 2019,
http://preservation.lacity.org/files/Pico%20Union%20Preservation%20Plan.pdf.
56
James Miller Guinn, A History of California and an Extended History of Los Angeles and Environs: Also
Containing Biographies of Well-Known Citizens of the Past and Present, Vol. 1 (Los Angeles: Historic
Record Company, 1915).
57
Solares refers to building lots 100 by 150 meters; suertes refers to sowing field 1005 by 1508 meters.
58
Joseph Netz, “The Great Los Angeles Real Estate Boom of 1887,” Annual Publication of the Historical
Society of Southern California 10, no. 1/2 (1915): 54–68, https://doi.org/10.2307/41168912.
21

Figure 2.3: Map of the city of Los Angeles, showing the confirmed limits, surveyed in August 1857.
Created by Henry Hancock, 1822-1883, Downloaded from Los Angeles Public Library Map Collection;
http://tessa.lapl.org/cdm/ref/collection/maps/id/45. The boundary of Pico-Union neighborhood was
annotated by the author.

After gold was discovered in 1849 in California, gold seekers flocked into
Southern California to seek more job opportunities and the city of Los Angeles
experienced its first real estate boom. To regulate the selling of land, Lt. Edward Ord
surveyed the land of Los Angeles under the commission of California’s military governor
Pico-UnionNeighborhood
22
in 1849. The survey map outlined the boundaries of the city, urban area, and nearby
agricultural land. Although Pico-Union is within the original boundaries of the pueblo, it
is not included on the Ord survey map.
59
Years later, another surveyor, Henry Hancock,
was assigned to survey the city in 1857. The city boundary of Hancock’s survey
delineated Hoover Street as the western boundary. (Figure 2.3) Accordingly, this map is
the first record of Pico-Union.
60

Suburbanization and Early Development
The Pico-Union neighborhood began to be settled in the late 1860s and 1870s as
a result of the population increase in the downtown area. Later fueled by the oil boom,
residential tracts grew rapidly in the area by the mid-1880s.
61

The construction of streetcars in the 1880s and 1890s promoted the land boom
and real estate subdivisions in Los Angeles. According to the Cox and Sanders Index
Map of Los Angeles in 1896, several streetcar lines traversed Pico, Washington, and
Jefferson in Pico-Union areas which accelerated the residential development in the
neighborhood.
62
(Figure 2.5) From 1890 to 1940, the area was an affluent suburb for
middle and high-income residents. Neighborhoods from the period include Alvarado
Terrace and Bonnie Brae Street in the Pico-Union district, now National Register
Historic Districts.
Alvarado Terrace was firstly deeded to Mattew “Don Mateo” Keller in 1864. In
1902, the land was subdivided by Doria Deighton Jones. She sold the lots at a low price
and at the same time required the construction of high-quality residences. The
advertisement describes the district as:
The only exclusive Residence Tract in the city. A second Chester Place.
Beautiful Parks. Shade Trees Planted. High Class building restrictions. No flats,
cottages, or stores. Wide streets conforming to the contour of land with cement

59
Los Angeles City Planning, “Pico Union Preservation Plan. Pdf”.
60
“Intensive Survey: Westlake Recovery Redevelopment Area, City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County,
California,” LSA Associates, Inc., accessed January 29, 2019.
https://planning.lacity.org/odocument/8cbace8b-a304-4e57-9fd3-
800331d25939/Westlake_RRA_Report.pdf.
61
Los Angeles City Planning, “Pico Union Preservation Plan. Pdf.”
62
Los Angeles City Planning, “Pico Union Preservation Plan. Pdf.”
23
sidewalks, curbs, and gutters. Perfect sewer system, water, gas, electric lights.
Excellent car service, four lines only 12 minutes from City Hall.
63

In addition to the upscale residences, one of the residents, Pomeroy W. Powers who
was the president of the City Council at the time, helped the city purchase a nearby 1.17
acre park in 1904. The Terrace Park was improved and beautified as a critical
component of the community. (Figure 2.4) In the north of Terrace Park, a small strip of
street was paved in red brick.
64
This beautiful red brick street polished by time is still
standing in its original appearance and telling the story of the neighborhood.
The South Bonnie Brae Tract was surveyed by Joseph Brent Banning in 1895. In
1896, Thomas F. Marley purchased the block of South Bonnie Brae Street between
Olympic and Eleventh from Lennie L. Marley. He commissioned renowned local
architects Merithew and Haley to design the east side of the block and built several
houses by himself on the west side. After the commercial and business buildings
erected in downtown Los Angeles in the late nineteenth century, real estate agencies
redeveloped the area around downtown Los Angeles and a part of old residences were
displaced. Three houses originally built around 1890 were relocated to the district by
Richard Green in 1909. Together, the South Bonnie Brae Tract represents a
“continuous chronological and architectural timeline.”
65

63
“National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination Form: Alvarado Terrace Historic District,”
The National Park Service, 1984. Originally cited from 1903 real estate sales brochure.
64
Ibid.
65
“National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination Form: The South Bonnie Brae Tract Historic
District,” The National Park Service, 1987.

24

Figure 2.4: Cover of The Better City magazine, 15 May 1909, from Los Angeles Conservancy tour book.
http://dbase1.lapl.org/webpics/calindex/documents/02/17358.pdf.

25

Figure 2.5: This streetcar lines which represented as red lines and blues lines in the map, crossed
through the Pico-Union community and directly connect Pico-Union to downtown. Cox and Sanders index
map of Los Angeles City, 1896, Maps of Los Angeles, Calif., the U.S. and the World Collection, UCLA,
Library Special Collections, Charles E. Young Research Library,
https://calisphere.org/item/ark:/13030/hb5v19p3cd/.The boundary of Pico-Union neighborhood was
annotated by the author.

Pico-Union was also one of the city’s main entry points for European immigrants
in the early twentieth century, including Greeks, Norwegians, Swedes, Welsh, and
Russian Jews. The Greeks immigrated to the United States around the 1900s and
1910s. They came to Los Angeles and established Greektown in the downtown area.
Later, many of them moved west to the Pico-Union area to start their business. Swedish
immigrants, like Greeks, worked as merchants, vendors, and shopkeepers in the area.
After they gained economic success, they moved to suburbs further away from the
center of the city. Throughout the 1940s and 1950s, Pico-Union continued to attract
Pico-Union
26
many immigrants from all over the world, including Romania, Hungary, Holland, Japan,
and China.
66

Becoming a Central American immigrant community
The Pico-Union area was filled with affluent Anglos. From the 1920s and the
1940s, residents in the neighborhood started to move out. The increasing number of
automobile and the construction of commercial districts western of downtown Los
Angeles encouraged inner city residents to move into new suburbs. The former
residents in Pico-Union were replaced by new immigrants.
67
In the 1950s and 1960s,
the first group of Mexican migrants moved into the area, and the wealthy white people
moved out concurrent with a larger trend of white flight. The construction of Santa
Monica and Harbor Freeways in the 1950s destroyed parts of the neighborhood and
isolated Pico-Union from adjacent neighborhoods to the east and south. The new
infrastructure had a huge impact on the physical and intangible character of the Pico-
Union neighborhood, which also motivated upper-class white people to move to suburbs
with a higher quality of living.
68
The white flight caused dramatic change of both the
economic and the demographic composition. With more and more low-income workers
living in the area, a large number of single-family houses converted to multi-family
dwellings to meet their needs.
69
As Mexican migrants gathered in Pico-Union,
Salvadoran, Guatemalans, and other Central American immigrants were attracted to
this area and gradually became the majority of the population in Pico-Union.
In the 1970s and early 1980s, large numbers of Salvadoran immigrants came to
the United States because of the civil war and political instability in Central America.
Those newcomers were attracted to largely Latino neighborhoods, where they could
easily continue their spiritual and social traditions and speak Spanish rather than

66
Judy Hutchinson, “Propinquity Without Community: A Study of Social Capital, Survival Networks and
Community Building in the Pico Union Area of Los Angeles” (PhD diss., University of Southern California,
1999).
67
James Diego Vigil, A Rainbow of Gangs: Street Cultures in the Mega-City (Austin: University of Texas
Press, 2002),131; Joan Moore, In the Barrios: Latinos and the Underclass Debate (Russell Sage
Foundation, August 19, 1993), 55.
68
Los Angeles City Planning, “Pico Union Preservation Plan. Pdf.”
69
Fernando Peñalosa, Central Americans in Los Angeles: Background, Language, Education Los Angeles
(Calif: Spanish Speaking Mental Health Research Center, 1986).
27
English. Many moved into neighborhoods adjacent to downtown such as Pico-Union,
Westlake, Echo Park, and Hollywood.
70
The first record of Salvadorans in the Pico-
Union neighborhood is in the late 1970s when several Salvadoran migrants first came to
the community. In the 1980s, the Reagan administration classified Central American
refugees as “economic migrants” who came to the U.S. to avoid poverty instead of
governmental repression. This immigration policy greatly increased the difficulty for the
Central Americans to obtain political asylum. In respond to the American foreign
intervention and immigration at the time, many activists designated their church as a
sanctuary for refugees. This movement is called the Sanctuary Movement. The First
Unitarian Church of Pico-Union became the first church in Los Angeles that declare
sanctuary in 1983.
71
Under this circumstance, more and more refugees traveled to Los
Angeles and chose Pico-Union as their destination.
72
They lived with relatives in
overcrowded apartments or slept in parks, under freeways, or in abandoned
structures.
73

To adapt to the new life in Pico-Union, Salvadoran migrants who were new to the
area and didn’t have voice of their own, tried to find their place amongst the Mexican
American community that called the area home. However, “many arrived disillusioned
and powerless, and unlike Mexican-Americans, their roots and networks did not date
back centuries. Getting a job often meant getting the nod of a Mexican contractor,
foreman or manager.”
74
In many cases, Salvadoran immigrants had to pretend to be
Mexican to get jobs. Under this condition, organizations were established in Pico-Union
to provide social and legal services for the Salvadoran community. For example, El
Rescate was established in 1981 near Pico-Union as one of the first refugee
organizations that aimed to help the influx of refugees from El Salvador.
75
The Central

70
Norma Chinchilla and Nora Hamilton, "Changing Networks and Alliances in a Transnational Context:
Salvadoran and Guatemalan Immigrants in Southern California," Social Justice 26, no. 3 (77) (1999): 4-
26.
71
Nora Hamilton and Norma Chinchilla, Seeking Community In Global City: Guatemalans & Salvadorans
In Los Angeles (Temple University Press; 1 edition, March 21, 2001).
72
Teresa Watanabe, “Pico-Union Tour Traces Historical Immigration Patterns,” Los Angeles Times, March
22, 2009, http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/22/local/me-pico22.
73
Vigil, Rainbow of Gangs.
74
Esmeralda Bermudez, “In L.A., Speaking ‘Mexican’ to Fit In,” Los Angeles Times, November 3, 2008,
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/nov/03/local/me-salvadoran3.
75
“El Rescate History,” El Rescate, accessed February 15, 2019, http://www.elrescate.org/about/history/.
28
American Resource Center, better known as CARECEN was created in 1983.
CARECEN was founded by two Salvadoran refugees to help to secure legal status for
Central Americans. Beyond political and legal services, other organizations such as
Clinica Monsenor Oscar A. Romero, were built to meet the social and health needs of
Salvadorans.
76
Today, Central Americans have businesses in Pico-Union such as
restaurants, markets, stores, and street vendors. They provide traditional products and
services for the Salvador community in Los Angeles County. Pico-Union is “Little
Central America” for many of them.
In its recent history, Pico-Union has been labeled as a “zone of need.”
77
In 1993,
the Los Angeles Times described the Pico-Union neighborhood as one of the city’s
poorest areas with the most crowded housing conditions.
78
“Pico-Union lacks job
opportunities, day care facilities, and an adequate educational infrastructure and
political representation. Together, these factors have led to a high crime rate,
underemployment and unemployment, overcrowding, liquor stores, gang violence, and
prostitution. However, Pico-Union also has a rich mix of cultures and a wide range of
tangible and intangible resources that reflect the layers of history of the neighborhood.

Conservation Efforts
The Community Redevelopment Agency of City of Los Angeles (CRA/LA)
The Community Redevelopment Agency of City of Los Angeles (CRA/LA) had
two projects in Pico-Union neighborhood, Pico-Union Project I and Pico-Union Project II.
Project I was adopted in 1970 and Project II was adopted six years later. At the time of
adoption, the purposes of the redevelopment plans were to provide more affordable
housing, to stimulate economic activities, to improve public services, to conserve and
improve the appearance of the neighborhood, and to encourage civic engagement.
79

76
“History - Central American Resource Center (CARECEN),” Central American Resource Center,
accessed February 15, 2019, http://www.carecen-la.org/history.
77
Edward T. Chang, Ethnic Peace in the American City: Building Community in Los Angeles and Beyond
(New York: New York University Press, 1999), 85.
78
Joel Kotkin, “Can Pico-Union Become Like N.Y.’s Lower East Side?” Los Angeles Times, September
28, 1997, http://articles.latimes.com/1997/sep/28/opinion/op-37054.
79
“About the Project Area,” Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency, accessed February 2, 2019,
http://www.crala.org/internet-site/Projects/Pico_Union_1/about.cfm.
29
Pico-Union I is the 155-acre area located on the east side of the neighborhood.
The redevelopment plan was adopted by the Los Angeles City Council in 1970 and has
been amended four times.
80
Pico-Union II is a 227-acre area located on the west side of
the neighborhood. The redevelopment plan was adopted by the Los Angeles City
Council in 1976 and amended in 2001. The focus of the plan is neighborhood
revitalization, heritage conservation, economic development, public improvement, and
affordable housing construction.
81
In 1981, a historic resources survey was conducted
by Roger G. Hatheway & Associates on behalf of the CRA/LA. The survey was
designed to identify resources eligible for the National Register of Historic Places within
Pico-Union I and II area.
82

The survey consisted of three phases. The first phase recorded resources that
are eligible, potentially eligible, or worthy of note in the entire survey area through visual
observation. The second phase photographed the resources, and at the same time,
reviewed their eligibility and degree of alteration. The survey report was the third phase.
This phase included reviewing the conclusions of the earlier two phases and preparing
Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms. According to Pico-Union Project
I historic resources survey, two buildings were eligible for the National Register, and five
buildings had potential eligibility. The eligible properties are buildings located at 928
West Seventeenth Street and 1400 West Pico Boulevard. The building at 928 West
Seventeenth Street is also called the B. Bodwell Residence. It was built in 1886 by Effie
M. and Bailey F. Bodwell. The building is significant for its high architectural quality and
integrity. The property located at 1400 West Pico Boulevard is a two-story commercial
building built in 1898. This building is significant because it is an excellent example of
an intact nineteenth century commercial property. In the Project II area, nine properties
and four districts are reported in the survey as eligible for the National Register because

80
Although the CRA/LA was dismantled in 2012, some of its projects are still overseen by the City’s
Department of City Planning to complete unfished programs.
81
Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency, “About the Project Area”.
82
The CRA/LA evaluated Pico-Union with only National Register of Historic Places criteria in the 1981
survey. In 1996 amendment, the CRA/LA added some significant historic resources with local designation
eligibility criteria.
30
of their architectural significance.
83
(Figure 2.6)

Figure 2.6: The documented resources in CRA/LA Redevelopment Plan Survey, created by the author.
Information come from Determination of Eligibility Report Pico Union I/II Redevelopment Project, Roger
G. Hatheway & Associates, Prepared for The Community Redevelopment Agency of The City of Los
Angeles, 1981. Base map downloaded from Esri ArcGIS Online Basemap.

The CRA/LA survey is the first survey and plan in the Pico-Union neighborhood
that included the consideration and conservation of historic building elements. The
survey provided a foundation for the conservation of eligible or potentially eligible
resources and recommended a degree of priorities for those resources in the
redevelopment plan. The contributions of CRA/LA in conserving Pico-Union largely

83
Roger G. Hatheway & Associates, “Determination of Eligibility Report Pico Union I/II Redevelopment
Project,” 1981.
31
showed up in the later conservation efforts. It was used as reference in the designation
of the National Register of Historic Districts and the Historic Preservation Overlay Zone.

National Register of Historic Places - 1984; 1988
In 1966, at the inception of the National Register, the Rómulo Pico Adobe in the
Mission Hills section of the city was designated as the first National Register of Historic
Places listing in the City of Los Angeles. As of December 2018, 52 years later, only 324
historic resources are listed on the National Register in Los Angeles and 50 historic
districts included.
84
In 1984, the Alvarado Terrace Historic District was listed on the
National Register of Historic Places.

Figure 2.7: The streetscape of the Alvarado Terrace Historic District, photo by the author, May 2019.

84
Historic district is counted as one historic resource. “National Register of Historical Places -
CALIFORNIA (CA), Los Angeles County,” National Register of Historical Places, accessed January 28,
2019, https://nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/ca/los+angeles/state.html.
32
The district is located in the middle of the Pico-Union neighborhood. The eight-
acre district includes fifteen buildings which surround a landscaped park and historic
brick-paved street. The period of significance is 1902 to 1910. The statement of
significance in the nomination form identified the district’s significance due to its
architecture quality, site plan, association with important people, and its relation to Los
Angeles’ early twentieth-century residential development. (Figure 2.7) Additionally, the
park and the red brick paved street’s development history and significance were also
identified as contributing features in the form. Overall, the district retained a high degree
of integrity at the time of designation. Twelve out of fifteen houses have been altered
minimally and contribute to the significance of the district.
85
(Figure 2.8)

Figure 2.8: The conservation of Alvarado Terrace district, created by the author. Information comes from
National Register of Historic Places Inventory - Nomination Form, Alvarado Terrace Historic District,
1984. Base map downloaded from Esri ArcGIS Basemap.

85
“National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination Form: Alvarado Terrace Historic District,”
The National Park Service, 1984.
33
The South Bonnie Brae Tract Historic District was designated in 1988. This
three-acre district is located in the north of the Pico-Union neighborhood. The district
contains sixteen residential houses, including three that were relocated from other
areas. The area of significance for the district is its outstanding architectural character. It
contains residences with architecture styles ranging from Queen-Anne to Colonial
Revival. (Figure 2.9)

Figure 2.9: The streetscape of the Bonnie Brae Street Historic District, photo by the author, May 2019.

This district represents the architectural and historical transition in Los Angeles’
residential development. The district’s period of significance is tied to the construction
dates of the houses, which is 1890 to 1905. The district retained high integrity and
cohesion at the time of designation. The only non-contributor is the Lillian Barker
Apartment building located at 1045 South Bonnie Brae. This structure was built in 1922
which represents a different phase of architectural development, a multi-family
34
residence type, and stucco construction features are distinct from other buildings in the
district.
86
(Figure 2.10)

Figure 2.10: The National Register of Historic District of South Bonnie Brae Tract created by the author.
Information comes from National Register of Historic Places Inventory - Nomination Form, Bonnie Brae
Historic District, 1988. Base map downloaded from Esri ArcGIS Basemap.

Historic Preservation Overlay Zone (HPOZ) 2004
The nomination of Pico-Union as Historic Preservation Overlay Zone (HPOZ)
was adopted by the City of Los Angeles in 2004.
87
The Pico-Union HPOZ district
includes 798 structures and sites, 528 contributors and 270 non-contributors.
88

The HPOZ designation is built on an historic resources survey completed in July
2003. The survey covered the whole Pico-Union neighborhood, bounded by Olympic
Boulevard on the north, the I-110 Freeway on the east, the Santa Monica I-10 Freeway

86
“National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination Form: South Bonnie Tract Historic District,”
The National Park Service, 1987.
87
“Pico-Union,” City of Los Angeles Office of Historic Resources, accessed March 25, 2019,
https://preservation.lacity.org/hpoz/la/pico-union.
88
“Pico Union Preservation Plan,” The City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning’s Office of Historic
Resources, October 12, 2006, accessed January 29, 2019,
http://preservation.lacity.org/files/Pico%20Union%20Preservation%20Plan.pdf.
35
on the south, and Hoover Street on the west. Over 1500 parcels were investigated. The
survey identified the contributor, non-contributor, contributing landscapes, natural
features, streetscapes features, and structures in the Pico-Union neighborhood. The
boundary of Pico-Union HPOZ is not the whole Pico-Union neighborhood. To be
designated as an HPOZ, a majority of buildings within the boundaries must be
contributors. In Pico-Union, part of the neighborhood has a high concentration of
contributors. Those contributing structures are mostly residential properties built from
the late nineteenth century to the early 1930s. This highly concentrated part includes
528 contributors and 270 non-contributors, which forms a sixty-six percent of
contributing buildings. Based on the construction period, the period of significance for
the Pico-Union HPOZ is the Nineteenth Century Styles (1860-1910), Turn of the
Century Styles (1890-1920), and Eclectic Revival Styles (1920-1940).
89
(Figure 2.11)

Figure 2.11: The Pico-Union HPOZ, created by the author. Information comes from Pico-Union Historic
Preservation Overlay Zone Survey Map, 2004. Base map downloaded from Esri ArcGIS Basemap.

89
Ibid.
36
In 2006, a customized preservation plan for the Pico-Union HPOZ was released
by the Department of City Planning’s Office of Historic Resources to outline the history
of Pico-Union; to guide the construction, rehabilitation, and relocation activities; to
provide conservation-related information; to enhance neighborhood pride; and to inspire
civic engagement in the conservation process.
90
The objective of the HPOZ designation
is to conserve “the historic integrity, sense of place, and quality of life in Pico-Union and
to preserve the neighborhood for future generations.”
91
The preservation plan provides
a historic context of the neighborhood development and further identifies the character
of the district. As a guideline, the preservation plan is helpful in maintaining the essential
architectural features and controlling the appropriateness of repair, rehabilitation, and
new construction. With the information in the plan, the public can better understand their
neighborhood, the benefits and resources of historic preservation, and in the end, the
opportunities for improving the quality of life. The HPOZ preservation process also
generates an opportunity for the public to connect with government agencies and
organizations. As an essential part of the community, the general public can participate
in the process of making a better neighborhood.
Considering the unique character of Pico-Union, the HPOZ preservation plan has
corresponding adaptation. The historical process of migration removed middle-class
and successful residents, while bringing in new, less wealthier members whose
emphasis is on supporting family instead of preserving the historic resources. And those
new members of the community are usually minority populations who have less access
to capital and public policy. Therefore, the Pico-Union neighborhood is facing problems
of long-term neglect, and deferred maintenance resulting in disrepair and inappropriate
alterations.
Since the owners of most of the houses are low to moderate-income residents,
economic capability to maintain historic buildings is a critical component to consider.
The Pico-Union Preservation Plan adjusted the rigor of preservation in the district. The
review streamlining for Pico-Union has some degree of simplifying to save time and

90
Ibid.
91
Ibid.
37
money of property owners.
92
And compared to other HPOZs’ requirement of material
replacement, the Pico-Union district has more flexible guidelines on non-visible
secondary facades.
93
Not every alteration requires HPOZ board review. In general, the
HPOZ review process focuses on the architectural elements which are visible from the
public way. For example, the installation or repair of decks, swimming pools, solar
collectors, and porches which are outside of public view are exempt from HPOZ review.
And, alterations related to Historic-Cultural Monuments, properties under Mills Act
contracts, and natural features are not included in the review process; they have
separate review by OHR staff.

SurveyLA
In 2014, SurveyLA released the Historic Resources Survey Report: Westlake
Community Plan Area. This survey report was completed by Historic Resources Group
from May 2013 to March 2014. Although the Pico-Union community is part of the
Westlake community, the already designated Pico-Union HPOZ is not covered by the
survey consistent with SurveyLA methodology, which does not include the survey of
already designated historic resources. The report focused on the properties surveyed by
SurveyLA within the boundary of the Pico-Union community but outside the HPOZ
boundary.
SurveyLA followed the guidelines of National Park Service and developed a city-
wide historic context statement which meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Preservation Planning. The historic context statement represents the city’s architectural,
social and cultural history, such as commercial development, residential development
and suburbanization, ethnic and cultural history, and post-war development. The
Multiple Property Documentation approach which was generated by the National Park
Service was used in the historic context statement to identify and evaluate thematically-
related historic properties.
94
Based on this approach, SurveyLA categorized extant

92
Christina Park, interviewed by author, February 2019.
93
Office of Historic Resources, “Pico Union Preservation Plan”.
94
The National Park Service, “Section II: How to Complete the National Register Multiple Property
Documentation Form,” National Register of Historic Places Bulletins, November 29, 2001,
https://www.nps.gov/nr/publiCations/bulletins/nrb16b/nrb16b_IIintroduction.htm.
38
representative property types under the historic context and themes and used the
Registration Requirements to evaluate those properties.
95
(Figure 2.12) Hence, the
documented resources are properties that have contextual significance, are eligible for
designation under federal, state, and/or local criteria, retain integrity, and date from
1850 to 1980. The SurveyLA Westlake Survey Report conducted in 2019 identified
fourteen individual resources and three non-parcel resources within the boundary of the
Pico-Union neighborhood.
96
(Figure 2.13)

Figure 2.12: The SurveyLA documentation method and process, created by the author. Information
comes from SurveyLA Los Angeles Historic Resources Survey, Field Guide to Survey Evaluation, City of
Los Angeles, Department of City Planning, Office of Historic Resources, May 2013.

95
“SurveyLA, Los Angeles Historic Resources Survey, Field Guide to Survey Evaluation,” City of Los
Angeles Department of City Planning Office of Historic Resources, published May 2013,
https://californiapreservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/2.Field-Guide_November_2013.pdf.
96
“Westlake Report Individual Resources,” Los Angeles Department of City Planning, April 2014;
“Westlake Report Non-Parcel Resources”, Los Angeles Department of City Planning, April 2014;
“Westlake Report Historic Districts, Planning District and Multi-Property Resources,” Los Angeles
Department of City Planning, April 2014.
39

Figure 2.13: The SurveyLA work in Pico-Union, created by the author. Information comes from “Westlake
Report Individual Resources,” Los Angeles Department of City Planning, April 2014
“Westlake Report Non-Parcel Resources”, Los Angeles Department of City Planning, April 2014. Base
map downloaded from Esri ArcGIS Basemap.

40
Chapter 3 Conservation Efficiency Evaluation

In Chapter One, the discussion presented how the concept of urban heritage
conservation developed and why UNESCO adopted the Recommendation on the
Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) in 2011. The concept of urban heritage has evolved in
the past three decades and the relationship between heritage and development has
been redefined consistently to adjust contemporary society. After understanding that
cities are not static monuments, but a dynamic entity that is influenced by economic,
social, and cultural forces, the HUL approach was put forward to form a holistic
conservation and urban heritage management method. The historic urban landscape
(HUL) is officially defined as a “comprehensive and integrated approach for the
identification, assessment, conservation and management of historic urban landscapes
within an overall sustainable development framework”.
97
The HUL recommendation
looked beyond traditional conservation that centered on physical elements, and
addressed the significance of the entire urban environment with all of its tangible and
intangible qualities. Moved from the rival relationship between conservation and
development, the HUL approach provides a feasible working guide that integrate urban
conservation to sustainable development and turns heritage to the driver of building
sustainable and resilient cities.

The implementation of the HUL approach
As an approach, the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) identifies four toolkits
(community engagement tools, knowledge and planning tools, regulatory systems, and
financial tools) to create potential methods that can achieve the harmony between
heritage conservation and sustainable development.
98
From the point view of
participants, planning, finance, and regulation, each toolkit has a list of approaches and
instruments that can be adopted to a local context and assist decision makers to take

97
“Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape,” United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization, created 10 November 2011,
https://whc.unesco.org/uploads/activities/documents/activity-638-98.pdf.
98
“The HUL Guidebook: Managing Heritage in Dynamic and Constantly Changing Urban Environments; A
Practical Guide to UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape,” United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, created 2016,
http://historicurbanlandscape.com/themes/196/userfiles/download/2016/6/7/wirey5prpznidqx.pdf.
41
robust and purposeful actions. At the same time, the four toolkits are interdependent
and yet symbiotic with one another. As a result, the application of those toolkits should
be considered holistically.
Civic Engagement Tools
In the concept explanation of the HUL approach, the UNESCO document
indicates that this approach "addresses the policy governance and management
concerns involving a variety of stakeholders, including local, national and international
public and private actors in the urban development process."
99
Therefore, a group of
civic engagement tools are suggested to foster collaboration among different
stakeholders. A city can be understood differently by people from various cultural and
subcultural backgrounds, so a city should be described in a comprehensive way that
integrates all the different voices. The essence of the civic engagement tool is in
respond the this need to stimulate the dialogues between different stakeholders and
encourage them to express their histories, traditions, needs, and desires. And the effect
of this toolkit will not be limited to the planning phases of projects, but act through the
whole process of heritage management. In other words, the civic engagement tools help
sharing information among stakeholders, expressing voices of vulnerable groups,
promoting a more holistic decision process, and building connections for future projects.
Some examples of civic engagement tools include oral interviews, web-based
investigation and discussion, open dialogue and workshops.

Knowledge and Planning Tools
The knowledge and planning tools are effective in identifying the significant
characters of heritage, interpreting the values of urban heritage, managing the future
changes, and making decisions to ensure the quality of life. When documenting and
mapping urban heritage, both material and cultural elements should be fully covered at
different scales. And depending on funds, time, human resources, and existing data, the
resources survey may include one or more methods, like historic context development,
visual analysis, cultural mapping, and socio-economic analysis. In addition to the
inventory of significant urban heritage, the assessment of potential pressures is another

99
UNESCO, “Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape.”
42
central topic for the knowledge and planning tools. The pressures may include and not
be limited to development pressure, cultural heritage impact, environmental impact, and
changes of social composition. And several tools like SWOT analysis, strategic
planning, and protective zoning, are commonly used for balancing changes and
conservation.
100

Regulatory Systems
Regulatory systems address the regulatory and legislative measures of
authorities in managing tangible and intangible heritage. The regulatory systems can be
both existing laws and new rules based on current challenges. And some of the
regulatory systems may have direct relationship with urban heritage, such as planning
and zoning laws, historic preservation laws, and district commission review processes.
There are also legal regulations that may indirectly influence historic resources. For
example, implementation of transportation improvements may cause the changes of
historic character. For instance, impertinent street widening could cause severe damage
to the form and character of historic urban landscape. But a sensible regulation system
will consider the urban heritage as part of the plan. Projects such as multi-modal
transportation or designated bus lanes could be created to improve transportation and
at the same time reduce the negative impact on urban heritage.

Financial Tools
Defined by Donovan Rypkema, heritage financial tools are “mechanisms and
programs used to encourage or facilitate the investment of capital into heritage
assets.”
101
Financial resources can be considered as the foundation of every
movement, especially in building capacities and supporting creative conservation and
development. Directly, the financial tools such as grants and tax abatement or credit

100
The analysis of an area’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) in development.
This method is helpful in developing a decision with the consideration of all factors; Patricia M. O’Donnell
and Michael Turner, “The Historic Urban Landscape Recommendation: A New UNESCO Tool for a
Sustainable Future,” IFLA Cape Town, 2012, http://www.heritagelandscapes.com/SiteImages/IFLA-
Cape%20Town-HUL%20ODonnell-Turner%2028July2012(1).pdf.
101
Donovan Rypkema, “Devising Financial Tools for Urban Conservatiton,” in Reconnecting the City: The
Historic Urban Landscape Approach and the Future of Urban Heritage, edited by Francesco Bandarin
and Ron van Oers, Wiley-Blackwell; 1 edition, October 23, 2014.
43
programs can reduce the costs and cash required for a conservation project. Financial
tools are sometimes paired with regulation systems and improving the accessibility and
effectiveness of heritage conservation. Tax credits and property tax reductions, for
instance, usually used by national or local government to promote the appropriate
management of urban heritage.
Tools like incentives and micro loans for low-income owners would also increase
the possibility for them to keep the integrity of historic properties. Another important
aspect of financial tools is the significance of public-private partnerships. When a public
sector agency needs extra investment capital or expertise, the cooperation with private
sectors may fill the gaps and in the same time share risks. Other benefits from financial
tools include reducing the expenses of conservation program, improving occupancy
levels, and creating a healthy investment environment for urban heritage.

The Six-Step HUL Approach
After the recommendation of the four tools described above, the HUL approach is
further explained as an action plan with six critical steps. Those steps integrate the
definition and the toolkits of the HUL to a practical structure with clear steps and the
flexibility to local condition. Generally, the action plan makes the approach easier to
understand and practice by both professionals and non-professionals. Furthermore, the
action plan does not require a determinate individual to practice those steps. This
intentional instruction puts the heritage conservation in a more open role. Thus,
conservation is no longer exclusive to conservationists or preservationists, but other
professions and the public. This is a unique character of this action. No pre-set limits
are made in the implementation of the HUL approach, the meaning of heritage, the
stakeholders, and the sequence of conservation actions are very open and depends on
the local reality. In detail, the Six Critical Steps are:
1. To undertake comprehensive surveys and mapping of the city’s natural,
cultural and human resources
2. To reach consensus using participatory planning and stakeholder
consultations on what values to protect for transmission to future generations and
to determine the attributes that carry these values
3. To assess vulnerability of these attributes to socio-economic stresses and
impacts of climate change
44
4. To integrate urban heritage values and their vulnerability status into a wider
framework of city development, which shall provide indications of areas of
heritage sensitivity that require careful attention to planning, design and
implementation of development projects
5. To prioritize actions for conservation and development
6. To establish the appropriate partnerships and local management frameworks
for each of the identified projects for conservation and development, as well as to
develop mechanisms for the coordination of the various activities between
different actors, both public and private
102

The Research and Practice of the HUL Approach
Ranging from a proposed recommendation to a research topic, 108 scientific
publications were identified as using the HUL Recommendation as references in their
studies, dating from 2011 to 2019 February.
103
(Figure 3.1) Most of the journal articles
and book chapters discussed the implementation of the HUL approach with case
studies to reflect the adaptation of the HUL approach to local contexts, such as
Granada, Liverpool, Vieux-Quebec, Pakistan, Cuenca, and Ballarat. There are also
publications that concentrate on the literature reviews of this recommendation and the
discussion of the theories behind the HUL definition, its benefits, deficiencies,
opportunities, and challenges. In addition, several books and dissertations have focused
on a deeper discussion on the HUL approach. The topics include the advocacy for
creating more holistic tools, developing a broader definition of heritage, and stimulating
more cooperation between stakeholders.

102
UNESCO “The HUL Guidebook”.
103
Ana Pereira Roders, "The Historic Urban Landscape Approach in Action: Eight Years Later," in
Reshaping Urban Conservation: The Historic Urban Landscape Approach in Action, edited by Ana
Pereira Roders and Francesco Bandarin (Springer Singapore, 2019), 36.
45

Figure 3.1. The yearly publication number that using HUL Recommendation. Adapted from Ana Pereira
Roders, “The Historic Urban Landscape Approach in Action: Eight Years Later” in Reshaping Urban
Conservation: The Historic Urban Landscape Approach in Action, ed. Ana Pereira Roders and Francesco
Bandarin, Springer Singapore, 2019.

In terms of the practice of the HUL recommendation, 160 cities participated in the
activities related to the recommendation, such as workshops, meetings, publishing, and
applications. In total, 350 activities were hosted over the past few years.
104
(Figure 3.2)
A few cities are early innovators who have the desire and the resources to try the new
approach and are willing to take risks, like Vienna in Austria, Le Havre in France, and
Chandigarh in India. Some cities followed the early innovators and explored the
implementation of HUL approach in their local context. Those cities are the early
adopters who furthered the theoretical development and the reality practice of the HUL
Recommendation. For example, Ballarat in Australia and Cuenca in Ecuador are
representatives in those cities. The cities following the early adopters and have just
started applying the HUL approach are the early majority. They are cautiously adopting
this new method to fit their local context. The recent cases include Raleigh, North
Carolina in the USA and Florence in Italy.

104
Roders and Bandarin ed., Reshaping Urban Conservation, 37-39.
46

Figure 3.2: Geological distribution of the one hundred and sixty cities which participated in the activities
related to the implementation of the HUL approach, by the author. Information come from “Reshaping
Urban Conservation: The Historic Urban Landscape Approach in Action”, ed. Ana Pereira Roders and
Bandarin Francesco, (Springer Singapore 2019), 37-39.

Case study: Ballarat Australia
The history of Ballarat and its future challenges
The City of Ballarat is located in the Victorian state of southeast Australia. The
history of Ballarat can be traced back to 30,000 years, when two Aboriginal language
groups, the Dja Dja Wurrung and Wadawurrung lived on this land. In the modern day,
the Aboriginal culture continues to cast its influence on Ballarat. The modern indigenous
people respect and have a connection with the symbolic and sacred land which stands
for their cultural and spiritual past.
105
The present Ballarat was mostly built from the gold
rush period in 1850s. After the discovery of gold in 1851, Ballarat became one of the
most productive goldfields in the world. The gold excavation caused population
explosion and rapid growth in the area. In 1853, about 20,000 miners moved to Ballarat
to build their careers.
106
Evidences of this period includes a historic center, several

105
Sophia Labadi, Urban Heritage, Development and Sustainability: International Frameworks, National
and Local Governance (Abingdon, Oxon;: Routledge, 2015), 99.
106
“Ballarat and UNESCO’s historic urban landscape approach,” The City of Ballarat Town Hall, created
2013, accessed May 26, 2019,
http://historicurbanlandscape.com/themes/196/userfiles/download/2014/5/16/pinx8xzux8vsvcr.pdf.
47
nineteenth and twenties century suburbs, historic buildings, parks, statues, and
descendants of those pioneers.
107

Today, the city of Ballarat is known for as one of the world’s most important and
intact mid-nineteenth century historic cities for its distinctive streetscapes, mid-
nineteenth century buildings, and its cultural institutions and activities.
108
The unique
characters of Ballarat are attracting an increasing number of new residents and tourists
to the city. The city’s projected population is expected to increase 60% from 2015 to
2040.
109
The prospected growth will largely influence the city’s development and is
considered as the most influential factor for the city’s future. In the same time, how to
deal with the climate change, a hotter and drier environment, will be another challenge
for the city.
Conservation works before HUL
The authorities of heritage conservation in Australia include national government
and States and Territories. Every State and Territory has its individual laws and
regulations for natural heritage, indigenous cultural heritage and historic cultural
heritage.
110
Existing local heritage conservation in Australia is mainly focused on
tangible resources. The local policies or laws aimed at safeguarding intangible
resources has yet be established. In addition, local governments which are the third
authority agency take charge of protecting a large part of local heritage. For the city of
Ballarat, the city council has the responsibility to identify and protect heritage in the
Ballarat Planning Scheme, to approve actions that have potential effects to heritage,

107
Susan Fayad and Kristal Buckley, “The Transformational Power of the HUL Approach: Lessons From
Ballarat, Australia, 2012-2017,” in Reshaping Urban Conservation: The Historic Urban Landscape
Approach in Action, edited by Ana Pereira Roders and Francesco Bandarin (Singapore: Springer
Singapore, 2019).
108
UNESCO “The HUL Guidebook”.
109
Ibid., 21.
110
Natural heritage includes protected natural area, endangered species and the protection of biodiversity.
Indigenous cultural heritage includes the cultural resources related to Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander people, such as tangible evidence and cultural traditions. Historic cultural heritage includes
resources that related to both indigenous people and migrants since the late eighteenth century.
Susan Fayad and Kristal Buckley, “The Transformational Power of the HUL Approach: Lessons From
Ballarat, Australia, 2012-2017,” in Reshaping Urban Conservation: The Historic Urban Landscape
Approach in Action, edited by Ana Pereira Roders and Francesco Bandarin (Singapore: Springer
Singapore, 2019), 127.
48
and to manage local, state and national heritage.
111
In the city of Ballarat, one national
heritage and more than sixty Victorian Heritage Registered places are managed by the
city. And most of them are conserved through the provisions of the city’s planning
scheme.
112
Despite the efforts of managing heritage resources, the limitations of
conservation before the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) approach were the lack of
recognitions for intangible heritage, the insufficiency of socio-economic contexts of the
whole area when considering a historic place, and the antagonistic relations between
conservation and development.
113

The application of the HUL Approach
In September 2013, Ballarat joined an international pilot program to implement
UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL).
114
The city of
Ballarat became the first local authority in the world to officially take part in the
implementation of the Historic Urban Landscape approach and the commitment to
incorporate HUL approach into future development plans.
115

A variety of individuals and organizations took part in the implementation of HUL
at different stages. The international partners include UNESCO, ICOMOS, WHITRAP,
and League of Historical Cities.
116
Such international cooperation allows Ballarat to
connect with networks across the globe, stimulating inspirations, sharing experience,

111
“Supporting Local Government Heritage Conservation (Final Report)”, Heritage Chairs and Officials of
Australia and New Zealand (HCOANZ), created 2008, accessed 25 May 2019,
https://www.heritage.vic.gov.au/__data/ assets/pdf_file/0020/55523/Supporting-Local-Government-
Heritage-Conservation-final- report-May-2008-.pdf.
112
“Heritage Act 2017,” State of Victoria, created 2017, accessed 25 May 2019,
http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/con- sol_act/ha201786/.
113
Susan Fayad and Kristal Buckley, “The Transformational Power of the HUL Approach: Lessons From
Ballarat, Australia, 2012-2017,” in Reshaping Urban Conservation: The Historic Urban Landscape
Approach in Action, edited by Ana Pereira Roders and Francesco Bandarin (Singapore: Springer
Singapore, 2019), 128-130.
114
UNESCO “The HUL Guidebook”.
115
Kristal Buckley and Susan Fayad, “The HUL and the Australian Burra Charter - Some Implications for
Local Heritage Practice,” Historic Environment, vol.29, no.2 (2017): 46-57.
116
UNESCO: The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization is a specialized
agency of the United Nations based in Paris. ICOMOS: The International Council on Monuments and
Sites is a professional association that works for the conservation and protection of cultural heritage
places around the world. WHITRAP: The World Heritage Institute of Training and Research for the Asia
and Pacific Region is an institute under the auspices of UNESCO and a non-profit training and research
center. League of Historical Cities: The League of Historical Cities was established in Kyoto, Japan in
1987. It holds a biennial world conference and provides cities from different cultures with a platform for
bilateral cooperation and mutual learning.
49
and exchanging ideas of new tools. And international symposiums were held in Ballarat
to attract experts and scholars all over the world to further the discussion of the HUL
approach. This transnationalism is a key factor for the implication of HUL in Ballarat.
117

In the approach’s day-to-day-practicalities, the local authority, City of Ballarat, has been
the leading force. It not only collaborated with the Federation University Australia and
Deakin University, Australia, but also teamed up with wide range of local stakeholders,
organizations, companies, and most importantly the local communities.
In Ballarat, all six critical steps and four tools sets are implemented and centered
on the engagement of the public. The step one requires to undertake comprehensive
surveys and mapping. The city emphasized on the access of data by developing tools of
community engagement and knowledge and planning which can visualize Ballarat’s
resources. The websites, www.hulballarat.org.au and www.visualising Ballarat.org.au
are two productions from this step. These online platforms not only impart knowledge to
citizens and stakeholders, but also provide 3D and 4D visualizations of the city’s history
and resources. (Figure 3.3) Based on this step, the step two needs to reach consensus
using participatory planning and stakeholder consultations on what values are important
to the city and why. Several participatory tools were created in Ballarat to achieve this
step. For instance, cultural mapping played as an important role in collaborating the
stakeholders and the public. In 2013, a project called “Ballarat Imagine” was launched
by the city to have a conversation with local communities about what are the significant
values of Ballarat, what makes the city unique, and what they imagine for the city’s
future.(Figure 3.4) Among the nearly six and a half thousand feedback comments,
“heritage, history, natural beauty and a great lifestyle were valued the most, with
heritage rated the most highly.”
118

117
Francesco Bandarin and Ron van Oers, Reconnecting the City: The Historic Urban Landscape
Approach and the Future of Urban Heritage (Chichester, West Sussex, United Kingdom: John Wiley &
Sons Inc., 2015).
118
The City of Ballarat Town Hall, "Ballarat and UNESCO’s Historic Urban Landscape Approach”.
50

Figure 3.3: The interface of www.visualising Ballarat.org.au with the map of present Ballarat and property
built data from 1940 to 2005. The image is a screenshot by the author in May 26, 2019.

The information from these tools helped the decision makers understand the character
of Ballarat from the perspective of citizens. The step three, assessing vulnerability is the
most challenging step for Ballarat, because cultural vulnerability is the neglected
element in the past development. To decide and analyze the influential indicators for the
city’s sustainability, a tool named Circles of Sustainability was established. This tool is a
process of deciding economic, political, cultural and ecological indicators and their
relationship which may affect the sustainability of a city. This practical tool helped
Ballarat identifying that the most vulnerable elements in the city is its ecology, which
includes both the natural and the built environment. After the identification of the city’s
vulnerabilities, a comprehensive framework of future development was established to
meet the step four in HUL approach, such as a long-term growth strategy, Today,
Tomorrow, Together: The Ballarat Strategy – Our Vison for 2040, and planning scheme
targeted heritage conservation, Our People, Culture & Place (2017-2030).
51

Figure 3.4: Ballarat East community map, which demonstrates the Ballarat citizens’ idea about Ballarat
East and its future. http://www.hulballarat.org.au/cb_pages/ballarat_east.php. Accessed May 26, 2019.

The results of Circles of Sustainability also provide evidence for setting prioritized
actions and a detailed action-oriented plan, which echo to the suggestion of the step
five. In all phases of implementation of the HUL approach in Ballarat, citizens are
actively involved. And the participations and cooperation are expanded to include all
levels of authorities, organizations, and individuals from different geographic areas,
disciplinaries, and backgrounds. Step six therefore exists in the steps before and
centered in the Ballarat’s practice.
119

The six critical steps formed an action framework to implement HUL approach.
And Ballarat is a great example illuminating how the four tools suggested in the HUL
approach were applied adaptively and innovatively when the city balanced its urban

119
Step six in the HUL approach: To establish the appropriate partnerships and local management
frameworks for each of the identified projects for conservation and development, as well as to develop
mechanisms for the coordination of the various activities between different actors, both public and private.
UNESCO, “The HUL Guidebook”.
52
heritage conservation and development. For civic engagement tools, the city created
cultural mapping and community maps, social media, local area advisory committees,
workshops, symposiums, events, information kits, and interactive website like
www.hulballarat.org.au. The planning and knowledge tools in Ballarat include visualizing
Ballarat, open data, online and internal decision support, technical studies and Local
Area Plans, evidence and benchmarks, landscape characterization, and Circles of
Sustainability assessment. In Ballarat, regulatory tools include community engagement
policy, statutory planning and enforcement, Ballarat Planning Scheme called Today,
Tomorrow, Together: The Ballarat Strategy – Our Vison for 2040, and heritage plan,
Our People, Culture & Place (2017-2030). The financial tools include different kinds of
grants, funding, and low-interest loans. For instance, Preserving Our Heritage Together
Grants Program in Ballarat had allocated $165,000 for conservation projects between
2010 to 2013.
120

As one of the earliest pilot cities to practice HUL approach, Ballarat illustrated part
of the possible actions and outcomes of this method’s implementation. The HUL
recommendation is not panacea for all urban issues and not always useful to handle
daily problems at once. However, the projects happened in Ballarat proved the value of
this approach, since HUL approach identified specific steps and tools. The emphasis of
Ballarat’s heritage conservation is no long regulatory-only but an integrated entity that
compatible with economic development, urbanization and social transformation.

Case study: Cuenca Ecuador
The history of Cuenca and its future challenges
Cuenca, also called Santa Ana de los Cuatro Ríos de Cuenca, is the capital city
of Azuay Province of Ecuador. This city is located in the highlands and surrounded by
hills and rivers. Four rivers, Tomebamba, Yanuncay, Tarqui and Machangarats run
through the Cuenca area and formed a city which has an intimate relationship with the
natural environment. The history of Cuenca can be traced back to 500 A.D., when
Cañari occupied this land and built the settlement called Guapondeleg. Later, the Incas
conquered the Cañari and transferred Guapondeleg with its nearby area to the city of

120
The City of Ballarat Town Hall, "Ballarat and UNESCO’s Historic Urban Landscape Approach”.
53
Tomebamba which is a regional capital.
121
The Cuenca was discovered and conquered
by Spanish forces in 1557 and been named after Spanish city Cuenca by the Viceroy of
Peru at the time, Andrés Hurtado de Mendoza.
122
The colonial city was constructed to a
grid pattern according to the Laws of the Indies, which was issued by the King of Spain,
Charles V. The orthogonal plan is well preserved as it is four hundred years ago. In
1820, Cuenca achieved its independence and jointed the Republic of Ecuador.
123

In recent years, the tourism industry is booming in Cuenca and caused the
diversification of population and social-economic transformation. Not only more and
more tourists come to Cuenca for their vacation, but also increasing number of retirees
chose Cuenca as their destination. The intensified population growth creates concerns
about the capacity of historic areas, the displacement of local population, and loss of
identity.
124

Conservation works before HUL
In Cuenca, inventory is a primary method for urban heritage conservation. The
first inventory activity happened between 1975 to 1978 under the direction of Architect
Patricio Munuñoz. The inventory was supported by the national House for Culture and
UNESCO, and 1,018 buildings were recorded for historic, aesthetic, and technologic
relevance. In 1982, the Urban Development Plan for the Metropolitan Area was
undertaken and the second wave of inventory is a part of the plan. In this inventory, 765
more buildings were recorded and the historic centre was divided into three zones, first
order area, respect area and special areas. The 1982 Development Plan set up the
foundation of heritage management in the city. The consequences of this inventory also
include the nomination of the city as National Cultural Heritage and the establishment of
the Commission of the Historic Centre which takes the responsibility of the execution of
Special Plan for the Historic Centre.
125
In 1999, an updated inventory was undertaken

121
Dennis M. Hanratty, “Ecuador: a Country Study," created at Library of Congress, Federal Research
Division, 1991, accessed September 17, 2019, http://www.public-
library.uk/dailyebook/Ecuador%20-%20a%20country%20study.pdf.
122
Alfonso María Borrero, Décadas de Cuenca: 1557-1567 (Cuenca: Municipalidad de Cuenca, 1967).
123
Ross W. Jamieson, Domestic Architecture and Power: the Historical Archaeology of Colonial Ecuador
(New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2000).
124
UNESCO, “The HUL Guidebook,” 36.
125
Avila, M. Siguencia, “Historic Urban Landscape Approach for the Conservation of the Historic Centre of
Cuenca, Ecuador” (PhD diss., Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 2018).
54
by the Municipality of Cuenca and is the first digitally stored inventory. This inventory
also contributed to the designation of Cuenca as World Heritage Sites in 1999. Later,
the next update happened between 2008 and 2009 with 900 more buildings added.
From this inventory, a broader type of heritage was considered, such as public spaces
and the notion of Historic Areas.
126

The application of HUL
The application of Historic Urban Landscape approach in Cuenca was driven by
several academic researches. In 2012, the University of Cuenca in Ecuador and the
VLIR-IUC Flemish University in Belgium launched an inter-university cooperation
program to discuss the HUL projects round the world. And two years later, the Research
Department of Universidad de Cuenca started the academic research to assess the
cultural and natural heritage in city of Cuenca based on the HUL approach. This project
addressed the consideration of the city as a historic entity, the encouragement of
interdisciplinary cooperation, and the citizens as protagonist. Finally, this academic
project made the base for the implementation of HUL approach in Cuenca. In the
implementation process, three groups of stakeholders were involved with academia in
the leading role. The public sector includes local government agencies, the private
sector includes developers and business individuals and companies, and the civic
sector includes citizens and NGOs.
The implementation of the HUL approach in Cuenca has three phases. The first
phase is called “diagnosis and state of the art”.
127
The purpose of this phase is to
identify and analyze the heritage in Cuenca. The research grouped geomorphological,
environmental, normative, and historic features as territorial characters. It also grouped
anthropological, archaeological, economic and architectural features as heritage
characters. And lastly the critical views of images and citizen workshops are grouped as
perception characters.
128
(Figure 3.5) This phase meets the requirement of step one

126
Ibid.
127
Julia Rey Pérez et al., “The Application of the Recommendation on Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) in
Cuenca-Ecuador. A New Approach to Cultural and Natural Heritage” (Universidad de Cuenca, 2017).
128
Julia Rey-Pérez et al., “The HUL Approach to Create Heritage Management Tools in the Latin
American City of Cuenca-Ecuador,” in Reshaping Urban Conservation: The Historic Urban Landscape
Approach in Action, edited by Ana Pereira Roders and Francesco Bandarin, (Singapore: Springer
Singapore, 2019).
55
and step three in the action plan of the HUL approach.
129
The second phase is
“identification of landscape units.”
130
This phase is aimed to define the area of study and
characterize the landscape units from the aspects of design and built heritage, culture,
environment, socioeconomic, and regulations. And all the results come from
participatory planning diagnostic workshops of all stakeholders. Those workshops
consist of active listening, feedback, reflection and joint action. (Figure 3.6) This phase
resembles step two and step four in the HUL approach.
131
The participation of all
stakeholders also results in a prioritization of actions regarding the conservation and
development. According to the stakeholders’ voting, promoting the pedestrianization
and improving public transport are the most critical desires and the most important
actions should be carried out.
132
These processes are according to the HUL approach
step four and five.
133
Lastly, the third phase is “elaboration of landscape unit record files
and assessment”.
134
This final phase intended to create a management system. In this
phase, a model sheet is used to file all the collected information in the earlier phases.
The model sheet highlighted every unit’s characters, heritage values, vulnerabilities,
and specific recommendations.
135
This worksheet is considered as a method to
systematically assist conserving the cultural and natural heritage and managing
development in the city of Cuenca.

129
Step one in the HUL approach: To undertake comprehensive surveys and mapping of the city’s natural,
cultural and human resources. Step three in the HUL approach: To assess vulnerability of these attributes
to socio-economic stresses and impacts of climate change. UNESCO “The HUL Guidebook”.
130
Rey Pérez et al., “The Application”.
131
Step two in the HUL approach: To reach consensus using participatory planning and stakeholder
consultations on what values to protect for transmission to future generations and to determine the
attributes that carry these values. Step four in the HUL approach: To integrate urban heritage values and
their vulnerability status into a wider framework of city development, which shall provide indications of
areas of heritage sensitivity that require careful attention to planning, design and implementation of
development projects. UNESCO, “The HUL Guidebook”.
132
Rey Pérez rt al., “The HUL Approach”.
133
Step five in the HUL approach: To prioritize actions for conservation and development. UNESCO, “The
HUL Guidebook”.
134
Rey Pérez et al., “The Application”.
135
Ibid.
56

Figure 3.5: Children’s expression of Cuenca. The drawing not only reflected the significance of buildings
but also the traditional gastronomic and clothing manifestations in the city of Cuenca. Picture drawn by
Anabel Barzallo, cited from Julia Rey Pérez, Sebastián Astudillo, María Eugenia Siguencia, Juliana
Forero, Silvia Auquilla, “The application of the recommendation on historic urban landscape (HUL) in
Cuenca-Ecuador. A new approach to cultural and natural heritage” (Universidad de Cuenca, 2017).

Figure 3.6: Poster of Visionary Conference Cuenca in 2015. This conference has a series of meetings for
consultation which collaborate international experts and local communities. Screen capture by the author
from http://www.ucuenca.edu.ec/institucional/comunicacion/14-banners/730-conferencia-visionaria.

The implementation of the HUL approach in Cuenca inspired the innovative
thinking and reflections internationally and locally. Internationally, this application of the
57
HUL approach in Cuenca made a good practice case for other countries to learn how to
adjust this approach to local context. And the experience delivered by this practice is
valuable. For example, the cooperation between different fields is especially essential in
the implementation of the HUL approach, because the city never tried to integrate
heritage conservation with other fields since the conservation work began in 1975. At
the same time, reading an agreement among experts with various academic
background is also one of the most challenging tasks while the implementation. Some
fields are easier to collect and visualize data such as geology and architecture, while
others require more time and human resources to get the data they need like
anthropology. The experience of Cuenca in dealing with this challenge can inspire other
cities or countries when they are facing the same issues.
Undoubtedly, the implementation of the HUL approach in Cuenca both reflects
many conservation challenges and provides new ideas and tools for the city’s future. In
applying the HUL approach, a lot of cultural and natural resources were updated, and
non-listed resources identified, specially the intangible elements. Also, the collaboration
of multiple disciplines and stakeholders create an opportunity for information sharing
and a chance for the future discussion. However, the nature of academic-driven made
this implementation has weaknesses while integrating the Municipality. From the
beginning of this project, there were problems lie in the collection of data, because of
the complicated administrative procedure. Part of the data obtained from the
Municipality has issues in their accuracy. This fact reflects the necessity of tracking and
updating data and facilitating more cooperation between the academia, the
administrative sectors, and the social public. Another weakness lies in this academic-
driven implementation is the lack of regulatory tools. Despite of the data obtained, and a
series of analysis made, the application of those results in real planning scheme is rare.
In other words, in the end of the implementation of the HUL approach in Cuenca did not
execute proposals and results derived from the analysis before. From the experience in
Cuenca, it is important to ensure the connection with exiting local policies and the
integration with local government in charge of heritage management, so that the
proposals and suggestions can be accomplished.

58
The implementation of the HUL in the United States of America
In the United Stated of America, there is a rising attention to the HUL approach
research and implementation. Based on the data collected in the book “Reshaping
Urban Conservation: The Historic Urban Landscape Approach in Action,” six areas
(Texas, Raleigh, Pittsburgh, New Brunswick, New Jersey, and Chicago) in the U.S.
participated in the discussion, research, publication, or application of this new
conservation approach.
136
In 2014, the Rutgers University Program in Cultural Heritage
and Preservation Studies (CHAPS) and the Penn Cultural Heritage Center collectively
held a workshop called “Urban Preservation In Context – Challenges And New
Approaches In The Mid-Atlantic Region” in New Brunswick to discuss the
implementation of 2011 UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape
and its relevance to conservation in in New Jersey, New York, and the entire mid-
Atlantic region.
137
This workshop included five main speakers. Patricia O’Donnell,
preservation landscape architect and urban planner, who has contributed to ASLA,
ICOMOS, IFLA and UNESCO World Heritage to promote the conservation of landscape
heritage, led the discussion about significance of the historic urban landscape and its
integration with cultural and sustainability of future. Susan Gruel and Fred Heyer, urban
planners of New Jersey; Matthew Hill, heritage policy researcher from Philadelphia; and
Gabrielle Esperdy, architectural historian, separately talked about the implementation of
tools from the HUL approach in local context.
138
The participants of this workshop
included city planners, preservationists, researches, students, citizens and
professionals from various backgrounds. This workshop indeed practiced the civic
engagement tools itself by launching this cross-disciplinary dialogue about the new tools
for the area’s future conservation and development.

136
Ana Pereira Roders and Francesco Bandarin, Reshaping Urban Conservation: The Historic Urban
Landscape Approach in Action, ( Springer Singapore, 2019).
137
“Guangzhou Roundtable on Historic Urban Landscape (HUL), 'Exploring the Role of Public
Participation and Public-Private Partnerships in Urban Heritage Management',” UNESCO, created 2014,
http://www.historicurbanlandscape.com/?classid=8998&id=168&t=show.
138
“Urban Preservation in Context: Challenges And New Approaches in The Mid-Atlantic Region,” Rutgers
School of Arts And Sciences, Department of Art History, Cultural Heritage And Preservation Studies,
created 2014,
http://www.historicurbanlandscape.com/themes/196/userfiles/download/2014/5/28/tq9g7dlzpt1rrz4.pdf.
59
The application of the HUL approach in real context is suggested in the city of
Raleigh in 2018. As the capital city of North Carolina, Raleigh with its rich historical and
cultural resources is facing the challenges from rapid economic development. While the
city has a robust conservation effort through the Raleigh Historic Development
Commission, the conservation tools are not sufficient for today’s rapid development and
redevelopment.
139
Therefore, the city hired PlaceEconomics, a private sector firm which
has a rich experience in analyzing economic impacts of heritage conservation, to
research and propose new toolkits that can fit the city’s needs. In 2018,
PlaceEconomics recommended twenty six potential tools based on the HUL approach
and tools applied by other cities.
140
For the knowledge and planning tools,
PlaceEconomics suggested the city to use tools like “intervention during demolition
waiting period” to actively use the demolition delay period to investigate potential
alternatives to demolition.
141
For the community engagement tools, PlaceEconomics
proposed to use tools like community-based survey, neighborhood matching grants,
and public awareness campaign on why historic preservation equals resiliency.
142

Those tools can help improving citizens’ awareness about their culture and heritage and
encourage them to take a role in conservation. For the financial tools, the suggestions’
emphases are on improving financing, improving investment environment, reducing
expenses, and reducing capital costs and risk. As a result, tools such as preservation
easements, long term resident extension, sales tax for historic preservation, and loans
for retrofitting historic buildings were proposed.
143
For regulatory tools, seven tools were
recommended to the City. “Historic district as affordable housing overlays,” for example,
suggested to provide incentives such as expedited review, fee waiver, reduction in
parking requirements, to property owners who opt to provide affordable housing.
144
In
addition to the four toolkits suggested by the HUL approach, PlaceEconomics
recommended a group of direct action tools. Those tools are available means provided

139
“Raleigh Historic Preservation Toolkit,” PlaceEconimics, created Janurary 1, 2018,
https://www.placeeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Full-Raleigh-HPT-w-Recommendations-
8.1.2018-smaller.pdf.
140
Ibid.
141
Ibid.
142
Ibid.
143
Ibid.
144
Ibid.
60
by federal agencies or other organizations that can use directly in Raleigh, such as
federal community development block grants, threatened building program, and historic
commercial corridors grant.
145

The steps suggested in the HUL approach were partly practiced by
PlaceEconomics. Primarily, the purpose of the PlaceEconomics recommendation is to
create more conservation tools to safeguard historic resources that has been identified
or nominated. The potential urban heritage that have not been identified were not coved
in its recommendation. There is no tools or methods suggested to help broaden the
categories of heritage. The “participatory planning and stakeholder consultations”
interviews were conducted with 33 stakeholders, including community members,
owners of historic properties, governmental staff, and developers.
146
The vulnerability
analysis was conducted from the perspective of the economic pressure. Because the
strongpoint of PlaceEconomics is the economic analysis, this analysis of the impact on
Raleigh’s heritage focused more on how those resources fit into the market. As
indicated in the step four of the HUL action plan, PlaceEconomics researched existing
conservation policies and stated their weaknesses.
147
The implementation of the HUL
approach in Raleigh is a recommendation of toolkits for the city, so the last two steps
were not conducted yet. Although the toolkits suggested by PlaceEconomics to Raleigh
have not moved into implementation stage, it made an example of how to customize the
HUL approach in the North American context.

145
Ibid.
146
Step two in the HUL approach. UNESCO, “The HUL Guidebook”; PlaceEconimics, “Raleigh Historic
Preservation Toolkit”.
147
Step four in the HUL approach. UNESCO, “The HUL Guidebook”.
61
Chapter 4 The application of Historic Urban Landscape
Framework as assessment system for existing conservation
practices in one area
Learning from the experience of implementing the HUL approach all over the
world, a city should consider how to adjust existing conservation methods to create new
policies and approaches that both satisfy modern needs and local circumstances. It is
essential to know where the conservation efforts currently stand and to understand the
gap between existing practice and other possibilities. The purpose of this section is to
develop an HUL approach-based assessment system that can used to analyze the
efficiency of conservation works in an area and the gap between them and the HUL
approach.
Through the exploration of different journal articles and conference papers,
especially the analysis conducted by Loes Veldpaus about the supranational and
subnational conservation policy in Amsterdam, a comparative evaluation method was
developed to analyze several conservation activities happened in one area.
148
In Loes
Veldpaus’s research, subnational and supranational heritage policies (local planning
and heritage conservation policies in Amsterdam and international conservation policy
conducted by UNESCO and ICOMOS) are compared through a set of shared questions:
what is heritage, why do we protect it, how is it managed, and who is involved in
heritage management.
149
Usually used in journalism, Who, what, when, where, why and
how are the six basis ingredients that can complete a story. When comes to the content
of a conservation method, those questions can help clarifying the content and the
process of problem solving. Accordingly, this article will analysis the content of the 2011
UNESCO Recommendation on Historic Urban Landscape based on the six questions:

148
Loes Veldpaus, “Historic Urban Landscapes: Framing the Integration of Urban and Heritage Planning
in Multilevel Governance” (PhD diss., Eindhoven University of Technology, 2015); Loes Veldpaus,
“Historic Urban Landscapes : an Assessment Framework Part II” (In Proceedings of the sustainable
architecture for a renewable future (PLEA 2013), 10-12 September 2013); Loes Veldpaus, “The Historic
Urban Landscape: Learning from a Legacy” (the 4th International Conference on Heritage and
Sustainable Development (Heritage 2014), 22-25 July 2014); “Historic Urban Landscape Approach as a
Tool for Sustainable Urban Heritage Management” (Culture in Sustainability, vo. 62, 2017).
149
Loes Veldpaus, “Historic Urban Landscapes: Framing the Integration of Urban and Heritage Planning
in Multilevel Governance” (PhD diss., Eindhoven University of Technology, 2015).
62
who is involved in heritage management, what is heritage, when does heritage
conservation happen, where does heritage conservation happen, why conserve
heritage, and how to manage urban heritage. Within the six questions, when and where
questions (when does heritage conservation happen, where does heritage conservation
happen) are adjusted to specific cases and will be excluded from the recommendation
content analysis. (Figure 4.1)

Figure 4.1: The four questions for the analysis of the 2011 UNESCO Recommendation on HUL, created
by the author.

Actors - Who is involved in heritage management?
The number and the type of stakeholders involved in urban heritage conservation
are increasing over the years. From the Venice Charter to the 2011 HUL
Recommendation, experts are not as powerful as they used to be in deciding what
should be considered as heritage and how to manage it. At the same time, the
community participation has gained increasing attention and has become one of the
essential parts of heritage management. In addition, governments from different levels,
practitioners from various businesses and organizations, and scholars from multiple
disciplinaries are actively taking a role in the heritage conservation. The HUL
Recommendation addresses the importance of the involvement of different stakeholders
and their responsibilities. Those stakeholders, from different nationalities, cultural
backgrounds, fields, disciplinaries, and perspectives, are encouraged to take part in all
stages of urban heritage conservation, from identifying values in their urban areas,
developing strategies, and taking actions.
150
It is noticeable that all the responsibilities

150
“Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape,” United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization, Created 10 November 2011,
https://whc.unesco.org/uploads/activities/documents/activity-638-98.pdf.
63
are equally attributed to all the stakeholders in the HUL approach. Although civic
engagement and multiple stakeholder involvement is commonly required in many public
policies related to heritage or not, the degree of communities’ participation is something
rarely mentioned. (Chart 4.1)
Chart 4.1: The answers of who is involved in heritage management, created by the author, information
extracted from the 2011 Recommendation on Historic Urban Landscape.

Attributes – What is heritage?
The terminology of heritage evolves over time. In the 2011 Recommendation on
HUL, it states clearly in the article three that urban heritage includes “its tangible and
intangible components.”
151
According to the early definition from UNESCO, tangible
heritage includes “buildings and historic places, monuments, artifacts, etc., which are
considered worthy of preservation for the future.”
152
In the definition of HUL, the
elements of tangible heritage extended to a broader context, including infrastructure,
historic and contemporary built environment, landscape features, such as
geomorphology, hydrology, topography, and open spaces and gardens.
153
In previous

151
Ibid.
152
“Tangible Cultural Heritage," United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization,
accessed June 23, 2019, http://www.unesco.org/new/en/cairo/culture/tangible-cultural-heritage/.
153
UNESCO, “Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape,” Article 9.
64
conservation efforts, intangible attributes were usually neglected or considered as the
reason to conserve certain tangible attributes instead of the subject of protection. In the
2011 Recommendation on HUL, intangible attributes are recognized as being as
important as tangible attributes and of value by themselves. The emphases on
intangible in part expanded the definition of heritage to include “land use patterns and
spatial organization, perceptions and visual relationships, as well as all other elements
of the urban structure, social and cultural practices and values, economic processes
and the intangible dimensions of heritage as related to diversity and identity.”
154
From
the explanation provided by the 2011 Recommendation, the question, what is heritage,
is well defined as a list of attributes. (Chart 4.2)

Chart 4.2: The answers of what is heritage, created by the author, information extracted from the 2011
Recommendation on Historic Urban Landscape.

Values - Why do we protect and why is something considered
heritage?
In the early twentieth century, scholars began to explore the reason for heritage
conservation and the classification of heritage values, such as Australian historian Alois

154
Ibid.
65
Riegl’s research about historical and contemporary values.
155
Since then, different kinds
of heritage values were defined by experts, citizens, governments, scholars,
organizations, or developed from various perspectives. One of the important times in
this journey to identify and classify the value of heritage is when the Burra Charter was
issued by Australia ICOMOS in 1979. In the Burra Charter, the values of heritage were
defined as “the aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual value for past, present or
future generations.”
156
The identification of social value encouraged the expansion of
values of heritage to a broader level. Until 2011, the HUL Recommendation addressed
the reason for heritage conservation is to “understand the historic layering of urban
environment and preserve and enhance the quality of the human environment.”
157
In
achieving those goals, the social value, economic, political, and ecological values of
heritage are appreciated in stimulating social and economic development, balancing the
relationship between urban and natural environment, and keep a sustainable
relationship between the heritage from past and present and future generations.
158

(Chart 4.3)

155
Alois Riegl, “The Modern Cult of Monuments: Its Essence and Its Development,” in Historical and
Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, edited by N. Stanley-Price et al (The J.
Paul Getty Trust, Los Angeles, 1996), 69–83.
156
“The Australia ICOMOS Charter for The Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance”, the
International Council on Monuments and Sites, created 1988, https://australia.icomos.org/wp-
content/uploads/Burra-Charter_1988.pdf.
157
UNESCO, “Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape”.
158
Ibid., article 11.
66

Chart 4.3: The answers of why we protect and why something is considered heritage, created by the
author, information extracted from the 2011 Recommendation on Historic Urban Landscape.

Steps - How to manage heritage?
The question of how to manage heritage has gained increased attention from
international heritage conservation charters and documents. In the 1964 Venice
Charter, the heritage management process is barely mentioned. The only one showed
in the charter is the leading role of experts in identifying significant resources and
conducting conservation actions.
159
Ten years later, the 1972 Convention broadened
the scope of conservation to include the roles of more stakeholders and their tools in
managing heritage.
160

The specific steps of heritage management were not formed until the adoption of
the Burra Charter in 1999, which classified three phases of heritage management.
These phases include: “understand significance, develop policy, and manage in
accordance with policy.”
161
However, an explicit and practical guideline to implementing

159
“International Charter for The Conservation And Restoration of Monuments And Sites,” the
International Council on Monuments and Sites, created 1964,
https://www.icomos.org/charters/venice_e.pdf.
160
“Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage”, United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, created 1972,
https://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext/.
161
ICOMOS, “The Australia ICOMOS Charter”.
67
these steps has not yet been developed. When the HUL Recommendation published in
2011 as an approach of heritage conservation, it elaborated the three phases of
heritage management and proposed a detailed guideline for conservation actions. The
recommendation states four traditional and innovative tool sets. And the interpretation of
the recommendation further development six critical steps based on the
recommendation and four tool sets. Comparing with charters and documents before, the
HUL Recommendation has a transformed attitude toward change. In other words, the
limits of acceptable change increased over time. Conservation originally emphasized
unchangeable preservation and protection without alteration.
162
In the next level of
tolerance, changes are accepted when they do not influence the significance of heritage
and can improve heritage’s adaptation to contemporary life.
163
For a long time, the
conservation practices followed this tolerance level and the integrity of significance is
the precondition of any changes. The establishment of the HUL Recommendation has
taken the acceptable limits to a higher level. Changes are acknowledged as
unavoidable but manageable, and heritage conservation became the means of
managing change and balancing the urban development and quality of living
environment. The HUL advocates using heritage to guide development in a way that
both reflect the values of precious generations and satisfy the needs of present and
future. In the actual steps, it is showed as the HUL’s emphasis on putting heritage in the
center of socioeconomic development and integrating heritage conservation into
general policy planning and practices. (Chart 4.4)

162
UNESCO, “International Charter for The Conservation”; “Convention Concerning the Protection of the
World Cultural and Natural Heritage”, UNESCO, created 1972, https://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext/.
163
ICOMOS, “The Australia ICOMOS Charter”.
68

Chart 4.4: The answers of how to manage heritage, created by the author, information extracted from the
2011 Recommendation on Historic Urban Landscape.

Assessment systems based on the HUL recommendation
The content of the 2011 HUL Recommendation can be summarized as seven
actors, ten attributes, eight values, and six steps that answering the questions who are
involving in the heritage management, what is heritage, why conserve heritage, and
how to manage urban heritage. Those thirty-one indicators form an evaluation
framework that can be used to measure the gap between the HUL approach and the
local conservation efforts so that to identity the strengths and weaknesses of local
conservation methods. (Chart 4.5) Through this chart analysis, multiple conservation
works can be analyzed individually to identity the features they obtained or not, and in
the same time, compare between different efforts to see their emphasis and changing
trends over times.

69

Evaluation Criteria
Conservation
Effort 1
Conservation
Effort 2
Conservation
Effort …
Actors
Decision makers

Other policy officers

Residents

Developers

Organizations

Conservation experts

Experts from other fields

Attributes
Buildings

Historic places

Urban elements

Landscape elements
Land use

Spatial organization
Perceptions and visual
relationships

Social and cultural
practices and values

Economic process

The intangible dimensions
of heritage as related to
diversity and identity

Values
Aesthetic

Historic

Scientific

Spiritual

Social

Economic

Political

Ecological

Steps
Surveys & mapping

Deciding conservation
values

Vulnerability assessment

Integration

Actions prioritization

Partnerships &
mechanisms
establishment

Chart 4.5: The assessment framework of the efficiency of local conservation efforts based on the HUL
approach, created by the author.

70
Chapter 5 Pico-Union: Discussion and Recommendation
The Pico-Union neighborhood in Los Angeles has multiple layers of history. And
the built environment of the community presents a long history of human settlement, city
development, migration movement, and cultural exchange. In the past few years, the
redevelopment of downtown Los Angeles has put severe pressure on the physical and
social environment of the Pico-Union community. In this area, conservation efforts have
been underway since the 1970s. It is time to take a closer look of the efficiency of those
efforts. The aim of this assessment is not to critique past efforts, but to reflect what has
been done and what may be adjusted for the future challenges.

The application of the HUL assessment system in Pico-Union
Actors
CRA/LA has practiced its conservation works in Pico-Union for more than forty
years. Its work involved several phases with different emphases. The actors involved in
those phases are rather complicated. With the emphasis on the conservation part of the
work, the later analysis shows only the activities and stakeholders involved in the work
of heritage conservation. The conservation efforts of CRA/LA started with the state and
local governments’ intention to redevelop downtown’s disinvested area. All the projects
and related activities were authorized by the California Redevelopment Law, enacted in
1945 and put into practice by the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los
Angeles.
164
In the redevelopment process, the Planning Department, the State Historic
Preservation Office, and Los Angeles Cultural Heritage Board also played roles in
assisting and allowing the designation of historic buildings and objects. Under the
leadership of the CRA/LA, conservations experts from Roger G. Hatheway & Associates
were hired to identify and document the historic resources in the Pico-Union area.
165

Hathaway staff included Rick Starzak, Tom Zimmerman, Leslie Huemann, and Roger

164
Mara A. Marks, "Shifting Ground: The Rise and Fall of the Los Angeles Community Redevelopment
Agency," Southern California Quarterly 86, no. 3 (2004): 241-90. doi:10.2307/41172224.
165
Hatheway & Associates is a cultural resource management firm, which specializes in cultural resource
surveys and reports in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA & Section 106) and
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines.
71
G. Hatheway, the principal investigator of the team.
166
Beyond the historic resources
survey, the CRA/LA also planned to encourage the land redevelopment by private
developers and public agencies.
167
The involvement of residents in the conservation
work of CRA/LA is almost identifiable. According to the documents filed by the survey
team, “communication with community groups and/or persons knowledgeable in the
history of Pico-Union” was conducted and participation opportunities are provided.
168

And Los Angeles City Council District 1 appointed the Pico Union Redevelopment
Project Areas No.1 & 2 Community Advisory Committees (CACs) to connect with local
residents and stakeholders. The CACs comprised of homeowners, property owners,
businesses, tenants and community-based organizations. Those local stakeholders
gathered monthly to provide advice and feedbacks to the redevelopment agency
regarding the affections of redevelopment activities in the community.
169

The listing of the Alvarado Terrace Historic District in 1984 and the South Bonnie
Brae Tract Historic District in 1988 in the National Register of Historic Places was
undertaken by the Los Angeles Conservancy, a nonprofit organization dedicated to
preserving architectural and cultural resources in Los Angele County. And the decision-
makers involved in the nomination process include the State Historic Preservation
Office and the National Park Service. Other potential actors were not involved in the
conservation of the Alvarado Terrace Historic District and the South Bonnie Brae Tract
Historic District.
The conservation efforts from the Historic Preservation Overlay Zone (HPOZ)
involved a variety of actors. The preliminary stage is a historic resources survey
conducted by the Department of City Planning’s Office of Historic Resources (OHR)
with careful research and evaluation from conservation experts. With the comment from
Cultural Heritage Commission and property owners and renters within the Preservation

166
Roger G. Hatheway served as the Principal Investigator for Hatheway & Associates since 1979; Rick
Starzak now serves as the Vice President and Historic Preservation Specialist at a global consulting firm
called ICF; Leslie Huemann serves as Historic Resources Manger at Sapphos Environmental, Inc.;
“Determination of Eligibility Report Pico Union I/II Redevelopment Project,” Roger G. Hatheway &
Associates, 1981.
167
Ibid.
168
Ibid.
169
“Public Meetings,” Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency, accessed October 9, 2019,
http://www.crala.org/internet-site/Projects/Pico_Union_2/meetings.cfm.
72
Zone, the application for Pico-Union HPOZ was adopted by the City Planning
Commission and the City Council in 2004. In the process of managing the Pico-Union
HPOZ, the HPOZ board of five members is established to help review the projects
within the district. The five members includes one member appointed by the Mayor who
has qualified real estate or construction experience, one member appointed by the City
Councilmember who is an owner or renter in the area, one member appointed by the
City’s Cultural Heritage Commission who is a licensed architect, and one member voted
by the initial four members from the Pico-Union neighborhood council. And all five
members have experience in or interest in heritage conservation, urban planning, or
real estate.
170
From the initiation of the HPOZ to the later review process, local
communities and the general public are informed and encouraged to engage in the
process.
SurveyLA, the Los Angeles Citywide Historic Resource Survey, is a
comprehensive historic resources survey undertaken between 2008-2018. The project
was funded by the Getty Foundation and administrated by the Los Angeles Department
of City Planning’s Office of Historic Resources. Pico-Union is included in the Westlake
Community Plan Area. The citywide historic context is the joint efforts of the Office of
Historic Resources, the Getty Conservation Institute, and other professional historic
preservation consultants, preservation advisors, academics, and historians. The on-site
field survey and report for the Westlake Community Plan area were completed by
Historic Resources Group, a local historic preservation consulting firm.
171

From the resulting chart below, all four conservation efforts involved the
participation of decision-makers and conservation experts. And experts from other fields
did not involve in any of the conservation processes. The CRA/LA is the only
conservation effort that cooperated with the developers. Despite the significance of civic
engagement, HPOZ is the one effort that reflected it in its urban heritage management.
(Chart 5.1)

170
“HPOZ Board Information," City of Los Angeles Office of Historic Resources, accessed October 5,
2019, https://preservation.lacity.org/hpoz/information-property-owners/hpoz-board-information.
171
“Historic Resources Surveys," Los Angeles City Planning, accessed October 9, 2019,
https://planning.lacity.org/preservation-design/historic-resources-survey.
73
Chart 5.1: The result of the assessment of the Pico-Union’s local conservation efforts in the aspect of
actors, created by the author.
Attributes
What to be protected and conserved in CRA/LA Pico-Union I and Pico-Union II
project was decided in the historic resources survey conducted in 1981. At the time of
the survey, the Roger G. Hatheway & Associates under the charge of the CRA
researched the resources in the Pico-Union I/II area with the eligibility of listing as the
National Register of Historic Places. So, the resources surveyed in the area include
buildings, sites, districts, structures, or objects, which in accordance with buildings,
historic places, urban elements, landscape elements in the evaluation criteria listed
below.
The federal conservation effort, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP),
categorizes historic resources clearly as buildings, sites, districts, structures, and
objects. The category “building” is defined as a shelter of human activity, which is the
same as the “buildings” in the HUL evaluation criteria.
172
The definition for “structures”
and “objects” in the NRHP is included in the criterion “urban elements”, such as bridge,
sculpture, streetlights, or benches. “Site” is a location with significant information. It
includes both natural and designed landscape elements such as gardens, trees, and
open spaces. “District” in the NRHP represents a unified entity of buildings, sites,
structures or objects. This category is part of the criterion “historic places” in the HUL
assessment system.

172
“How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation,” the National Register of Historic Places:
Survey, Evaluation, Registration, and Preservation of Cultural Resources, National Park Service, created
1995, accessed October 9, 2019, https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB-
15_web508.pdf.
Evaluation Criteria CRA/LA NRHP HPOZ SurveyLA
Actors
Decision makers √ √ √ √
Other policy officers √ X √ x
Residents √ X √ x
Developers √ X x x
Organizations √ √ x √
Conservation experts
√ √ √ √
Experts from other
fields
x X x x
74
The protected heritage types in the NRHP is also the target of the conservation in
the local effort, Historic Preservation Overlay Zone (HPOZ). In its resources
documentation and survey, the HPOZ survey team identified significant resources like
single-family houses, multi-family structures, mature trees, designed gardens,
streetlight, and historic districts. In addition to the heritage covered in the conservation
efforts before, the HPOZ also protected the spatial organization and visual relationships.
For instance, the Alvarado Terrace has a unique spatial organization compared to other
blocks in Pico-Union and neighborhoods outside Pico-Union. The houses in the
Alvarado Terrace were built upon a slope defined by stone and concrete retaining walls.
Those houses have deep setbacks from the sidewalk and accessed through individual
stairs rising from the sidewalk. (Figure 5.1) To preserve the perception and visual
relationships, the HPOZ established design guidelines to help control the appearance of
the neighborhood, including the preservation of existing historic features, the controls of
replacement, and the restriction on the new additions and the height of new buildings.

Figure 5.1: Houses in the Alvarado Terrace District. Photo by the author.
SurveyLA documented five types of heritage resources in the Pico-Union
neighborhood. The resources were classified as individual resources, non-parcel
resources, historic districts, district contributors and non-contributors, and planning
districts.
173
Individual resources are “resources located within a single assessor parcel”,
such as buildings and structures.
174
Non-parcel resources are resources without
addresses, such as trees, street lights, signs, and other objects. Historic districts are

173
“Historic Resources Survey Report, Westlake Community Plan Area”, Historic Resources Group, 2014.
174
Ibid.
75
defined as a group of themes and geographically related resources, like a
neighborhood, a commercial street, and campuses. Individual resources or non-parcel
resources within a district were future identified as contributors and non-contributors.
And a district that does not meet eligibility standards but still retains distinctive character
is classified as a planning district.
175
By identifying planning districts, SurveyLA provides
the Department of City Planning a layer of urban resources that worthy of consideration
in future planning efforts. In Pico-Union, buildings, streetlights, commercial signs, street
trees, parkways were identified and documented by the SurveyLA project.
In general, all kinds of tangible heritage were identified as targets of protection
under the four conservation efforts in Pico-Union, while only the HPOZ considered the
conservation of spatial organization and perceptions. Even though social and cultural
values are appreciated in the four conservation efforts, they are values attached to the
physical evidence and no separate protection was granted. (Chart 5.2)

Evaluation Criteria CRA/LA NRHP HPOZ SurveyLA
Attributes
Buildings √ √ √ √
Historic places √ √ √ √
Urban elements √ √ √ √
Landscape elements √ √ √ √
Land use x x x x
Spatial organization x x √ x
Perceptions and visual
relationships
x x √ x
Social and cultural practices
and values
x x x x
Economic process x x x x
The intangible dimensions
of heritage as related to
diversity and identity
x x x x
Chart 5.2: The result of the assessment of the Pico-Union’s local conservation efforts in the aspect of
attributes, created by the author.

175
The eligibility standards include standards of the National Register of Historic Places, California
Register of Historical Resources, and local designation as City Historic-Cultural Monuments (HCM) or
Historic Preservation Overlay Zones (HPOZ).
76
Values
The National Register of Historic Places evaluates the significance of historic
resources based on their aesthetic, historic, scientific, and social values. To be
considered as heritage, a resource must meet the National Register Criteria for
Evaluation. In the evaluation criteria, a resource is significant or is considered as
heritage because of its values in “American history, architecture, archaeology,
engineering, and culture.”
176
This value can be aesthetic or scientific when a resource
has an association with certain ways of construction or a representative quality of a
master’s work. The value can be historic or social if a resource has an association with
a historical event or the life of a significant person or information related to history or
prehistory.
177
However, certain properties are excluded from listing in the National
Register; for instance, to maintain separation of church and state, a resource that
“owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes” will not be qualified as
heritage.
178
In other words, spiritual values are excluded from the National Register of
Historic Places.
The redevelopment agency surveyed Pico-Union and evaluated the properties’
significance following the NRHP standards. The historic properties are defined as
heritage out of their aesthetic, historic, scientific and social values.
The HPOZ survey of Pico-Union classified historic resources as contributors or
contributing structures. They are properties that contributing to the historic significance
of the Pico-Union neighborhood. The values behind contributors are decided by the
historic context statement, which is a written document that describes the history of a
neighborhood by theme, place and time, and the physical elements associated with the
history. In Pico-Union HPOZ’s historic context statement, residential development was
identified as the central historical theme. The pattern of residential development and the
social transformation behind it is significant for the Pico-Union area. Therefore, the
aesthetic, historic, and scientific values of the architecture in the area and the social

176
National Park Service, “How to Apply”.
177
Ibid.
178
Ibid.
77
values associated with the immigrant population changes are values in the Pico-Union
HPOZ’s designation.
Similar to HPOZ’s evaluation, SurveyLA states the reason of significance in its
historic context statement. The SurveyLA’s citywide historic context statement includes
nine broad contexts and multiple sub-contexts and themes which cover the city’s history
from 1780 to 1980. For Pico-Union, the applied historic context statements are
residential development and suburbanization, public and private institutional
development, architecture and engineering, commercial development, industrial
development, and other context. Under those six broad contexts, a list of themes are
identified, including early residential development, streetcar suburbanization, religion
and spiritual and ethnic/cultural associations, public schools and the LAUSD, air raid
sirens and civil defense, Mediterranean and indigenous revival architecture, post-war
modernism, streetcar commercial development, commercial signs, mortuaries and
funeral homes, commercial identity, event and series of events, early industrial
development, public works. From this list of themes, it is not hard to see that SurveyLA
has a wider range of values covered in its eligibility evaluation. Different than the
conservation efforts before, SurveyLA included spiritual, economic, and political values.
For example, Apostolic Faith Mission at 216 N Bonnie Brae Street was evaluated as
heritage because of its association with the Pentecostal Azusa Street Revival and the
modern Pentecostal movement. (Chart 5.3)

Evaluation Criteria
CRA/LA
Survey
NRHP HPOZ SurveyLA
Values
Aesthetic
√ √ √ √
Historic
√ √ √ √
Scientific
√ √ √ √
Spiritual
x x x √
Social
√ √ √ √
Economic
x x x √
Political
x x x √
Ecological
x x x x
Chart 5.3: The result of the assessment of the Pico-Union’s local conservation efforts in the aspect of
values, created by the author.

78
Steps
In the CRA/LA efforts, a comprehensive survey and mapping of the architectural
resources in Pico-Union were conducted. Even though the CRA/LA survey is the first
conservation effort in the area, a group of professional historic preservation consultants
documented the visual character and the background information of historic resources.
Complete survey documents and maps were generated as part of the Pico-Union
redevelopment program survey. In determining which values to be protected and what
to be conserved for the future generations, the CRA/LA followed the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties instead of consulting the
residents or stakeholders as suggested in the HUL approach. The conditions of existing
houses, businesses, and public facilities were identified and researched, but no
vulnerability assessment was conducted or applied in the redevelopment project. But
the integration step was achieved because the historic resources survey was part of the
redevelopment plan. The survey results worked as references in future developments
and the significant resources are considered as a sensitive area of development and
redevelopment. So, a certain level of priority was given to the identified significant
resources. Actions in the redevelopment plan are also according to this principle. In
addition to the priority to the structures, residents and owners of businesses in the
neighborhood were also granted priorities. For example, the redevelopment agency
provided the preference to owners or residents in the community when they retain and
obtain any residential units in the area over the non-original residents. In the practice of
the conservation and development in the CRA/LA redevelopment plan, a complete
management framework and partnerships were established. For example, in the
CRA/LA’s 2006 action plan in the Pico-Union Project I, the management focused on the
conservation of historic character of the neighborhood, the growth of affordable houses,
and the encouragement of economic activities. Following the management objectives,
the redevelopment department took the conservation relative actions, including its
supports in the HPOZ project, the initiation of the Pico Boulevard Streetscape Program,
79
and the Signage Program.
179
In its management, CRA/LA founded the City Department
of Public Works to improve the physical environment of the neighborhood, such as the
construction of public facilities, repair of sidewalks, curbs, and gutters. It also
cooperated with nonprofit organizations to construct health facilities and encouraged the
real estate developers to build more affordable residences.
The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) also documented via survey
and maps the detailed information of the Alvarado Terrace Historic District and the
South Bonnie Brae Tract Historic District in the Pico-Union neighborhood.
180
The
conservation values and subjects were decided under the federal guideline and no civic
engagement or stakeholder consultation was conducted. The vulnerability evaluation for
the historic resources within the conservation area were the missing part of the NRHP
conservation effort. While the NRHP worked as a planning tool, its main effect is rest on
projects undertaken by federal agencies. Its connection with local development may
show a weak integration. And despite NRHP’s advantage of federal tax incentives, it not
has clear prioritized actions or plans for conservation and development may happen in
the historic districts. The same limitation shows in the NRHP’s connection with local
stakeholders and the mechanisms for the engagement of different actors.
The management of the Historic Preservation Overlay Zone in Pico-Union is the
most influential conservation effort in the area. Based on the surveys and records from
the CRA/LA and NRHP, the consultant who prepared the HPOZ survey restudied the
neighborhood and conducted historic resources surveys and maps with the information
and evaluation of every architectural feature. The conservation values were decided
similarly to the conservation efforts before by following the federal guidelines. Although
the stakeholders and community members were informed about the conservation
objects and values selected, they were not involved in the decision-making process.
Like the conservation efforts of CRA/LA and NRHP, the vulnerability assessment for the
neighborhood was not conducted. But, the HPOZ recognized and acknowledged Pico-

179
“Pico Union I Redevelopment Project,” Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency, accessed
October 9, 2019, http://www.crala.org/internet-
site/Projects/Pico_Union_1/upload/Work%20Program%20Narrative_pu1.pdf.
180
The map is.one of the important components of the NRHP. The map requires an accurate location of
the listed property, the kinds of resources associated with it, and the geographic boundaries of the
nominated property.
80
Union’s vulnerability in its research and action plan, such as the economic status of the
low to moderate-income residents in the area. As shown in its name, a historic
preservation overlay zone is a planning overlay. This whole overlay zone represents its
special considerations and priorities when any development issued within this area.
Besides, the Pico-Union HPOZ plan is part of the Westlake Community Plan and part of
the City’s General Plan, which means the urban heritage and their values are integrated
into a wilder framework of development. The various kinds of development in the Pico-
Union overlay zone, new construction, alternations, repairs all under the review of the
HPOZ plan guidelines. When doing those reviews, the protection of the primary and
visible facades and the non-visible secondary facades have their prioritized
considerations. Behind those steps, a mechanism for the coordination of different actors
was developed in the urban heritage management of HPOZ. Take the reviewing
process for example, property owners send their request to the HPOZ Board and the
Cultural Heritage Commission regarding their action on the urban heritage. These two
direct involved departments review the cases and make recommendations to the
decision-maker, the Director of Planning who will make the final determination. And all
the materials and decisions are based on the guideline of the Pico-Union Preservation
Plan.
SurveyLA is a citywide historic resources survey program in Los Angeles.
Although only a small part of Pico-Union was covered in the SurveyLA because the
methodology of SurveyLA is not to re-survey designated historic resources, the urban
heritage in the targeted area was documented in a complete system that shows
resources’ historic context, theme, type, evaluation criteria, and reasons for
significance. Maps and photos of those resources also included in the survey system.
The values and attributes were also determined by the federal standard, which keeps
consistent with conservation efforts before. SurveyLA emphasized on the
documentation of potential historic resources, so the assessment of the properties’
vulnerability was not part of the program objectives. The outcome of SurveyLA is
integrated into other city projects. The survey for Pico-Union has cooperated into the
Westlake Community Plan Area. With the information collected by SurveyLA, another
layer of protection was provided to properties outside the Pico-Union HPOZ. One of the
81
character of the SurveyLA is that its management of urban heritage is based on the
principle of comprehensive research. The action prioritization was not included in the
process. Another character is that SurveyLA has a streamlined management system
and a solid partnership. The method of survey and document in Pico-Union is exactly
the same as other communities.
For the perspective of how to manage urban heritage, the four conservation
efforts in Pico-Union have their own emphases. CRL/LA and HPOZ are the two
conservation system which is closest to the HUL approach. They practiced most of the
steps recommended in the HUL approach, except for the participatory planning and
vulnerability assessment. And from the chart below, we can easily identify that surveys
and mapping and integration are the most common accomplished steps, while the
deciding conservation values by participatory planning and the assessment of
vulnerability are the part that not included any conservation effort in Pico-Union. (Chart
5.4)
Evaluation Criteria CRA/LA NRHP HPOZ SurveyLA
Steps
Surveys & mapping
√ √ √ √
Deciding conservation
values by participatory
planning
x x x x
Vulnerability
assessment
x x x x
Integration
√ √ √ √
Actions prioritization
√ x √ x
Partnerships &
mechanisms
establishment
√ x √ √
Chart 5.4: The result of the assessment of the Pico-Union’s local conservation efforts in the aspect of
steps, created by the author.

Discussion and recommendation
Overall, CRA/LA qualified eighteen out of thirty-two criteria, NRHP met thirteen of
them, HPOZ met eighteen, and seventeen criteria were qualified by SurveyLA. Within
the four efforts, CRA/LA, HPOZ, and SurveyLA achieved more than half of the
evaluation criteria, while NRHP only met forty percent. (Chart 5.5) The four conservation
tools are similar in looking at the number of criteria they met. Looking closer, the results
82
of using the HUL criteria to evaluate the four conservation efforts in Pico-Union show
similarities in the criteria they met and not qualified. (Chart 5.6)

Chart 5.5: The performance of local conservation efforts in Pico-Union based on the HUL approach,
created by the author.

Community participation is a concept that appeared early in the work of CRA/LA.
However, it is until the practice of HPOZ that citizens obtained limited access to the
heritage management process. Community members are usually informed or educated
about urban conservation happening in the area, but they rarely delegate the power or
control the decision making. Understandably, citizen participation is controversial,
especially in low to moderate-income neighborhoods which struggle in financial
markets. However, the power of people is irreplaceable, since they are the ones who
observe, appreciate, and manage urban heritage every day. The necessity for the
participation of community members is confirmed in attributes selections. The privilege
of architectural and material attributes of urban heritage in the conservation practice in
Pico-Union is a common character. Only HPOZ has a small part of the intangible
heritage covered under its protective umbrella. The truth is all four conservation
approaches recognized the cultural significance and social diversity of the community,
especially in their statement of significance and historic context statement. However, the
direct designation or protection actions targeted those intangible attributes did not
conducted. potential method to survey and document cultural heritage is letting the
citizens decide what is important to them in the community they live in. They may
identify the beliefs, knowledge, cuisine, festivals, and folk activities that show their
identity or their sense of community. For example, the Jewish people used to be the
83
main population in Pico-Union. They brought their belief and culture to the community
and they still practice their cultural and spiritual activities even if some people have
moved to other areas. Their attachment to the Pico-Union neighborhood is part of what
makes to community vivid. Certain tools can be implemented to obtain data of cultural
values, such as field observation, conversations with wide residents, the research of
ethnographies, and the interaction with community organizations. The collected data
can be used represented as cultural mappings or websites to provide a physical
illustration.
The conservation efforts in Pico-Union focused on the protection methods that
solve immediate issues or existing questions. None of the four conservation efforts
analyzed the vulnerability of the community and the potential threats and pressures that
may cast on the urban heritage. It is not the tools of vulnerability assessment not exist
or accessible, but it is rarely combined with heritage conservation. Take the socio-
economic analysis as an example, it is an essential tool for urban planning or
community planning. Social-economic analysis can be used to track the changes in
inhabitants and developments, such as the densities of population, the average age, the
composition of ethnics within certain areas that can help understand the potential
pressure from development. This kind of analysis or assessment also requires
interdisciplinary cooperation. In the future, the stakeholders may consider including
experts from other fields. And different views and suggestions can be added to the
conservation of urban heritage in the Pico-Union area.
In addition to the criteria that may meet in the future, there is also room for
improvement of existing tools. Survey and mapping are the steps practiced by all the
conservation efforts in the Pico-Union neighborhood. The documents of architecture
form, façade, architectural details are well developed. But on a large scale, like at a
district scale, the documentation and mapping are very limited. It is possible to consider
the document of view scenes. A survey of sightlines can be conducted to document how
a district looks like from different street corners, different heights, different directions.
Specifically, with modern-day technology, the 3D model is a helpful and accessible tool
that can be applied to assist the documentation of the change and spatial development
of a community.
84
Through the HUL evaluation, the strengths and weaknesses of the conservation
efforts happened in Pico-Union can be systematically diagnosed. Individually, the
evaluation shows the differences between local conservation methods in the area and
the trending international conservation approaches. This outcome provides an
improvement guide map with specific areas can be focused on. And by comparing these
conservation practices, the constant methods such as mapping and the value of federal
standards can be tracked to demonstrate the stabilization and consistency of current
conservation methods. It also provides a potential consideration of using cutting-edge
technology to substitute for the outdated methods. On the other hand, the comparison
of different conservations shows a trend of changing in urban heritage management,
like the inclusion of residents as stakeholders, the action prioritization, and the
establishment of the partnership mechanism. From a large picture, the conservation
efforts in Pico-Union are in progress of growth and have the potentiality to better. The
evaluation here does not mean the conservations must follow the guideline of the HUL
approach and change their way of practicing, but this is a chance to see the potential
area of upgrading and the tools that available for the development.

85
Attributes
Buildings √ √ √ √
Historic places √ √ √ √
Urban elements √ √ √ √
Landscape elements √ √ √ √
Land use x x x x
Spatial organization x x √ x
Perceptions and
visual relationships
x x √ x
Social and cultural
practices and values
x x x x
Economic process x x x x
The intangible
dimensions of
heritage as related to
diversity and identity
x x x x
Values
Aesthetic
√ √ √ √
Historic
√ √ √ √
Scientific √ √ √ √
Spiritual x x x √
Social √ √ √ √
Economic x x x √
Political x x x √
Ecological x x x x
Steps
Surveys & mapping
√ √ √ √
Deciding
conservation values
by participatory
planning
x x x x
Vulnerability
assessment
x x x x
Integration
√ √ √ √
Actions prioritization
√ x √ x
Partnerships &
mechanisms
establishment
√ x √ √
Chart 5.6: The assessment framework of the efficiency of local conservation efforts in Pico-Union based
on the HUL approach, created by the author.

Evaluation Criteria CRA/LA NRHP HPOZ SurveyLA
Actors
Decision makers √ √ √ √
Other policy officers √ x √ x
Residents √ x √ x
Developers √ x x x
Organizations √ √ x √
Conservation experts
√ √ √ √
Experts from other
fields
x x x x
86
Conclusion
The Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape proposed by UNESCO
in 2011 started a new era of urban heritage conservation. Firstly, it addressed the
importance of intangible heritage. Secondly, it collaborated with various stakeholders to
express their opinions and to decide the definition and subsequently the management of
heritage. The HUL approach also provided a chance for the integration of sustainable
development and urban heritage conservation, which made heritage management an
inseparable part of urban planning and development. Built upon UNESCO’s past
knowledge and practice in historic resources management, the HUL approach is
developed beyond the limitation of international guideline and became a practical
approach that can be applied in different countries, neighborhoods, cultural
backgrounds, time scales, stakeholder involvements. It takes urban landscape as a
comprehensive concept and approach to integrating various disciplines, different levels
of stakeholders, conservation, and development, so it is very adaptive to all kinds of
scenarios and needs. Therefore, there is an urgent need to thoroughly understand the
strengths and weaknesses that lie in the existing heritage management system and
identify the gaps between the international guidelines and existing local conservation
practices.
The purpose of this research was to understand the potentiality of using
UNESCO 2011 recommendation of the HUL approach to assess the efficiency of local
conservation efforts. From the emphasis on analyzing the theoretical and practical
content of the HUL approach, the focus shifted to trying to design a framework for the
comparative assessment of conservation efforts in the same area during different
periods. In this way, the thesis intended to deepen the understanding of the pioneering
international conservation approach and the experienced local conservation methods
would comparatively analyze the gap between the two and suggested future heritage
management possibilities.
In the previous chapters, the HUL approach has been illuminated in terms of
concepts and processes. And three case studies all over the world with different levels
of application has been analyzed to learn about the implementation of the HUL
approach in a local context. To apply the HUL approach at the local level, the starting
87
point was to understand a current local conservation system by analyzing its structure
concerning the basic components and process steps found in the HUL approach. This
thesis developed an HUL approach-based framework to evaluate the efficiency of
practicing conservation efforts and make recommendations.
Pico-Union was analyzed as a comparative study because of its long, complex
history and its abundant social and cultural resources. Pico-Union is an example of what
a neighborhood near the urban center may under the pressure of urban development
and the protection of conservation efforts from national, state, and local levels. The
comparative analysis of conservation practices conducted under NRHP, CRA/LA,
HPOZ, and SurveyLA in Pico-Union showed the common strength in preserving
tangible historic resources and the trending in enlarging the definition of “heritage” to be
more inclusive. And the community participation was proved to gain more attention in
recent years’ conservation works. In addition to the changes and improvements of
conservation practices that happened in Pico-Union, the differences between local
practice and international recommendation can be detected. As such, the steps
recommended in the HUL approach will be a guide for the area’s conservation path.
While the comparative analysis of conservation efforts in Pico-Union proved the
practicability of using the HUL approach as an assessment framework, further research
is needed. Ideally, this assessment framework should be applied in a wide range of
case studies to test its validity. The comparison between different neighborhoods in one
city or urban heritage conservation works in a different city may provide more valid and
comprehensive results to examine the HUL assessment framework.
Even though much more research is needed, this study is a start to develop an
assessment framework to compare conservation efforts, deepen the understanding of
local conservation efforts, support current practices, and reveal trends in heritage
management and its integration with urban planning.

88
Bibliography

Bandarin, Francesco, and Ron van Oers ed., Reconnecting the City: The Historic Urban
Landscape Approach and the Future of Urban Heritage. Wiley-Blackwell; 1 edition,
October 23, 2014.

Bandarin, Francesco, and Ron van Oers. Reconnecting the City: The Historic Urban
Landscape Approach and the Future of Urban Heritage. Chichester, West Sussex,
United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2015.

Bandarin, Francesco, and Ron Van Oers. The historic urban landscape: managing
heritage in an urban century. John Wiley & Sons, 2012.

Bermudez, Esmeralda. “In L.A., Speaking ‘Mexican’ to Fit In.” Los Angeles Times,
November 3, 2008. http://articles.latimes.com/2008/nov/03/local/me-salvadoran3.

Bernstein, Ken, and Janet Hansen. “SurveyLA: Linking Historic Resources Surveys to
Local Planning.” Journal of the American Planning Association 82, no. 2 (April 2, 2016):
88–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2015.1137199.

Borrero, Alfonso María. Décadas de Cuenca: 1557-1567. Cuenca: Municipalidad de
Cuenca, 1967.

Buckley, Kristal, and Susan Fayad. “The HUL and the Australian Burra Charter - Some
Implications for Local Heritage Practice.” Historic Environment, vol.29, no.2, 2017.

California State Parks. “About the Office of Historic Preservation.” Accessed January
25, 2019. https://www.parks.ca.gov/.

California State Parks. “California Historical Resources.” Accessed January 25, 2019.
https://www.parks.ca.gov/.

Central American Resource Center. “History - Central American Resource Center
(CARECEN).” Accessed February 15, 2019. http://www.carecen-la.org/history.

Chang, Edward T. Ethnic Peace in the American City: Building Community in Los
Angeles and Beyond. New York: New York University Press, 1999.

Chinchilla, Norma, and Nora Hamilton. "Changing Networks and Alliances in a
Transnational Context: Salvadoran and Guatemalan Immigrants in Southern California."
Social Justice 26, no. 3 (77) (1999): 4-26.

Choay, Françoise. The Modern City: Planning in the 19th Century. New York, N.Y.:
George Braziller,1970.

89
City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning Office of Historic Resources.
“SurveyLA, Los Angeles Historic Resources Survey, Field Guide to Survey Evaluation.”
Published May 2013. https://californiapreservation.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/09/2.Field-Guide_November_2013.pdf.

City of Los Angeles Office of Historic Resources. “About the HPOZ Program.” Accessed
January 25, 2019. https://preservation.lacity.org/hpoz/homepage/about-hpoz-program.

City of Los Angeles Office of Historic Resources. “HPOZ Board Information.” Accessed
October 5, 2019. https://preservation.lacity.org/hpoz/information-property-owners/hpoz-
board-information.

City of Los Angeles Office of Historic Resources. “HPOZ Living, A Guide to Los
Angeles’ Historic Preservation Overlay Zones.” Accessed January 25, 2019.
https://preservation.lacity.org/sites/default/files/HPOZLivingPamphlet.pdf.

City of Los Angeles Office of Historic Resources. “Pico-Union.” Accessed March 25,
2019. https://preservation.lacity.org/hpoz/la/pico-union.

City of Los Angeles Office of Historic Resources. “Project Description.” Accessed
January 25, 2019. https://preservation.lacity.org/survey/description.

City of Los Angeles Office of Historic Resources. “Why a Citywide Survey?” Accessed
January 25, 2019. https://preservation.lacity.org/survey/why.

Collins, William J, and Katharine L. Shester. “Slum Clearance and Urban Renewal in
the United States.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 5, no. 1 (January 1,
2013): 239–273.

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles. “About Us.” Accessed
January 26, 2019. http://www.crala.org/internet-site/About/who_we_are.cfm.

De Vries, Bert J.M., and Arthur C. Petersen. “Conceptualizing Sustainable
Development: An Assessment Methodology Connecting Values, Knowledge,
Worldviews and Scenarios.” Ecological Economics 68, no. 4 (February 15, 2009):
1006–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.11.015.

El Rescate. “El Rescate History.” Accessed February 15, 2019.
http://www.elrescate.org/about/history/.

Estolano, Cecilia. “Sustainable Growth with Equity in Practice: The Example of
Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles.” In Toward a 21st
Century City for All: Progressive Policies for New York City in 2013 and Beyond.
Accessed January 26, 2019. https://www.gc.cuny.edu/Page-Elements/Academics-
Research-Centers-Initiatives/Centers-and-Institutes/Center-for-Urban-Research/CUR-
research-initiatives/Toward-a-21st-Century-City-for-All.
90

Fogelson, Robert M. The Fragmented Metropolis: Los Angeles, 1850-1930. University
of California Press, 1993.

Freestone, Robert. “Urban Planning in a Changing World.” The Twentieth century
Experience. London: Spon Press, 2000.

Geddes, Patrick. Cities in Evolution; an Introduction to the Town Planning Movement
and to the Study of Civics. London: Williams & Norgate, 1915.

Goodrich, Andrew Robert. “Heritage Conservation in Post-Redevelopment Los Angeles:
Evaluating the Impact of the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los
Angeles (CRA/LA) on the Historic Built Environment.” Master Thesis, University of
Southern California, 2012.

Gordon, Eric. The Urban Spectator: American Concept Cities from Kodak to Google.
Lebanon: Dartmouth College Press, 2010.

Guinn, James Miller. A History of California and an Extended History of Los Angeles
and Environs: Also Containing Biographies of Well-Known Citizens of the Past and
Present, Vol. 1. Los Angeles: Historic Record Company, 1915.

Hamilton, Nora, and Norma Chinchilla. Seeking Community In Global City:
Guatemalans & Salvadorans In Los Angeles. Temple University Press; 1 edition, March
21, 2001.

Hanratty, Dennis M. “Ecuador: a Country Study." Created at Library of Congress,
Federal Research Division, 1991. Accessed September 17, 2019. http://www.public-
library.uk/dailyebook/Ecuador%20-%20a%20country%20study.pdf.

Heritage Chairs and Officials of Australia and New Zealand (HCOANZ). “Supporting
Local Government Heritage Conservation (Final Report).” Created 2008. Accessed 25
May 2019. https://www.heritage.vic.gov.au/__data/
assets/pdf_file/0020/55523/Supporting-Local-Government-Heritage-Conservation-final-
report-May-2008-.pdf.

Historic Resources Group. “Historic Resources Survey Report, Westlake Community
Plan Area.” 2014.

Howe, Kathryn Welch. The Los Angeles Historic Resource Survey Report: a Framework
for a Citywide Historic Resource Survey. Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute,
2008. http://hdl.handle.net/10020/gci_pubs/la_historic_resource_survey.

Hutchinson, Judy. “Propinquity Without Community: A Study of Social Capital, Survival
Networks and Community Building in the Pico Union Area of Los Angeles.” PhD diss.,
University of Southern California, 1999.
91

Jamieson, Ross W. Domestic Architecture and Power: the Historical Archaeology of
Colonial Ecuador. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2000.

Kotkin, Joel. “Can Pico-Union Become Like N.Y.’s Lower East Side?” Los Angeles
Times, September 28, 1997. http://articles.latimes.com/1997/sep/28/opinion/op-37054.

Kropp, Walter W., and James K. Lein. “Research Articles: Scenario Analysis for Urban
Sustainability Assessment: A Spatial Multicriteria Decision-Analysis Approach.”
Environmental Practice 15, no. 2 (June 1, 2013): 133–46.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1466046613000045.

Labadi, Sophia. Urban Heritage, Development and Sustainability: International
Frameworks, National and Local Governance. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2015.

Los Angeles City Planning. “Historic Resources Surveys." Accessed October 9, 2019.
https://planning.lacity.org/preservation-design/historic-resources-survey.

Los Angeles City Planning. “Pico Union Preservation Plan. Pdf.” Accessed January 29,
2019. http://preservation.lacity.org/files/Pico%20Union%20Preservation%20Plan.pdf.

Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency. “About the Project Area.” Accessed
February 2, 2019. http://www.crala.org/internet-site/Projects/Pico_Union_1/about.cfm.

Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency. “Pico Union I Redevelopment
Project.” Accessed October 9, 2019. http://www.crala.org/internet-
site/Projects/Pico_Union_1/upload/Work%20Program%20Narrative_pu1.pdf.

Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency. “Public Meetings.” Accessed October
9, 2019. http://www.crala.org/internet-site/Projects/Pico_Union_2/meetings.cfm.

Los Angeles Conservancy. “Pico Union Layers of History.” Accessed January 30, 2019.
https://www.laconservancy.org/sites/default/files/files/resources/PicoUnion_Tour_new.p
df.

Los Angeles Department of City Planning. “Westlake Report Historic Districts, Planning
District and Multi-Property Resources.” April 2014.

Los Angeles Department of City Planning. “Westlake Report Individual Resources.”
April 2014.

Los Angeles Department of City Planning. “Westlake Report Non-Parcel Resources.”
April 2014.

LSA Associates, Inc. “Intensive Survey: Westlake Recovery Redevelopment Area, City
of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, California.” 2009. Accessed January 29, 2019.
92
https://planning.lacity.org/odocument/8cbace8b-a304-4e57-9fd3-
800331d25939/Westlake_RRA_Report.pdf.

Marks, Mara A. "Shifting Ground: The Rise and Fall of the Los Angeles Community
Redevelopment Agency." Southern California Quarterly 86, no. 3 (2004): 241-90.
http://doi.org/:10.2307/41172224.

Moore, Joan. In the Barrios: Latinos and the Underclass Debate. Russell Sage
Foundation, August 19, 1993.

National Park Service. “How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.” In
the National Register of Historic Places: Survey, Evaluation, Registration, and
Preservation of Cultural Resources. Created 1995, Accessed October 9, 2019.
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB-15_web508.pdf.

National Register of Historical Places. “National Register of Historical Places -
CALIFORNIA (CA), Los Angeles County.” Accessed January 28, 2019.
https://nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/ca/los+angeles/state.html.

Netz, Joseph. "The Great Los Angeles Real Estate Boom of 1887." Annual Publication
of the Historical Society of Southern California 10, no. 1/2 (1915): 54-68.
https://doi.org/10.2307/41168912.

O’Donnell, Patricia M., and Michael Turner. “The Historic Urban Landscape
Recommendation: A New UNESCO Tool for a Sustainable Future.” IFLA Cape Town,
2012. http://www.heritagelandscapes.com/SiteImages/IFLA-Cape%20Town-
HUL%20ODonnell-Turner%2028July2012(1).pdf.

Peñalosa, Fernando. Central Americans in Los Angeles: Background, Language,
Education Los Angeles. Calif: Spanish Speaking Mental Health Research Center, 1986.

PlaceEconomics. “Raleigh Historic Preservation Toolkit.” Created January 1, 2018.
https://www.placeeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Full-Raleigh-HPT-w-
Recommendations-8.1.2018-smaller.pdf.

Rey-Pérez, Julia, Sebastián Astudillo, María Eugenia Siguencia, Juliana Forero, and
Silvia Auquilla. “The Application of the Recommendation on Historic Urban Landscape
(HUL) in Cuenca-Ecuador. A New Approach to Cultural and Natural Heritage.”
Universidad de Cuenca, 2017.

Riegl, Alois. “The Modern Cult of Monuments: Its Essence and Its Development.” In
Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, edited by
N. Stanley-Price et al. The J. Paul Getty Trust, Los Angeles, 1996.

Roders, Ana Pereira, and Bandarin, Francesco ed. Reshaping Urban Conservation: The
Historic Urban Landscape Approach in Action. Springer Singapore, 2019.
93

Roger G. Hatheway & Associates. “Determination of Eligibility Report Pico Union I/II
Redevelopment Project.” 1981.

Rutgers School of Arts and Sciences Department of Art History, Cultural Heritage And
Preservation Studies. “Urban Preservation in Context: Challenges and New Approaches
in The Mid-Atlantic Region.” Created 2014.
http://www.historicurbanlandscape.com/themes/196/userfiles/download/2014/5/28/tq9g7
dlzpt1rrz4.pdf.

Siguencia, Avila, M., “Historic Urban Landscape Approach for the Conservation of the
Historic Centre of Cuenca, Ecuador.” PhD diss., Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 2018.

Siravo, Francesco. “Conservation Planning: The Road Less Traveled.” The GCI
Newsletter, 26(2). Accessed March 11, 2019.
http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/newsletters/26_2/feature.html
.

Sitte, Camillo. City Planning According to Artistic Principles. New York: Random
House,1965.

State of Victoria. “Heritage Act 2017.” Created 2017. Accessed 25 May 2019.
http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/con-sol_act/ha201786/.

The City of Ballarat Town Hall. “Ballarat and UNESCO’s Historic Urban Landscape
Approach.” Created 2013. Accessed May 26, 2019.
http://historicurbanlandscape.com/themes/196/userfiles/download/2014/5/16/pinx8xzux
8vsvcr.pdf.

The City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning’s Office of Historic Resources.
“Pico Union Preservation Plan.” Published October 12, 2006. Accessed January 29,
2019. http://preservation.lacity.org/files/Pico%20Union%20Preservation%20Plan.pdf.

The International Council on Monuments and Sites. “International Charter for The
Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites.” Created 1964.
https://www.icomos.org/charters/venice_e.pdf.

The International Council on Monuments and Sites. “The Australia ICOMOS Charter for
The Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance.” Created 1988.
https://australia.icomos.org/wp-content/uploads/Burra-Charter_1988.pdf.

The National Park Service. “Chapter 2 National Register Criteria for Evaluation.” In
National Register of Historic Places Brochure. 2002.

The National Park Service. “How to List a Property?” Accessed January 23, 2019.
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/how-to-list-a-property.htm.
94

The National Park Service. “National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination
Form: Alvarado Terrace Historic District.” 1984.

The National Park Service. “National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination
Form: The South Bonnie Brae Tract Historic District.” 1987.

The National Park Service. “Section II: How to Complete the National Register Multiple
Property Documentation Form.” National Register of Historic Places Bulletins,
November 29, 2001.
https://www.nps.gov/nr/publiCations/bulletins/nrb16b/nrb16b_IIintroduction.htm.

The National Park Service. “What Is the National Register of Historic Places?"
Accessed January 23, 2019. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/what-is-the-
national-register.htm.

Tyler, Norman, Ted J. Ligibel, and Ilene R. Tyler. Historic Preservation: an Introduction
to Its History, Principles, and Practice 2nd ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2009.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. “Recommendation on
the Historic Urban Landscape.” Created 10 November 2011.
https://whc.unesco.org/uploads/activities/documents/activity-638-98.pdf.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. “The HUL Guidebook:
Managing Heritage in Dynamic and Constantly Changing Urban Environments; A
Practical Guide to UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape.”
Created 2016.
http://historicurbanlandscape.com/themes/196/userfiles/download/2016/6/7/wirey5prpzn
idqx.pdf.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. “Guangzhou
Roundtable on Historic Urban Landscape (HUL), 'Exploring the Role of Public
Participation and Public-Private Partnerships in Urban Heritage Management'.” Created
2014. http://www.historicurbanlandscape.com/?classid=8998&id=168&t=show.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. “Tangible Cultural
Heritage." Accessed June 23, 2019.
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/cairo/culture/tangible-cultural-heritage/.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. “Convention
Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage.” Created 1972.
https://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext/.

United Nations. Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment
and Development—Brundtland Report. United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 1987.

95
Veldpaus, Loes, Ana R Pereira Roders, and Bernard J F Colenbrander. “Urban
Heritage: Putting the Past into the Future.” The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice
4, no. 1 (April 1, 2013): 3–18.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/1756750513Z.00000000022.

Veldpaus, Loes. “Historic Urban Landscapes: Framing the Integration of Urban and
Heritage Planning in Multilevel Governance.” PhD diss., Eindhoven University of
Technology, 2015.

Vigil, James Diego. A Rainbow of Gangs: Street Cultures in the Mega-City. Austin:
University of Texas Press, 2002.

Watanabe, Teresa. “Pico-Union Tour Traces Historical Immigration Patterns.” Los
Angeles Times, March 22, 2009. http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/22/local/me-
pico22.

Welter, Volker. Biopolis: Patrick Geddes and the City of Life. Mass: MIT Press, 2002.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Legacy business program implementation in American urban immigrant neighborhoods: a case study of Little Tokyo and Chinatown, Los Angeles

PDF

Capturing the layers of the Arroyo Seco landscape: documenting a cultural landscape using digital storymaps

PDF

Mapping heritage justice in the city of Los Angeles

PDF

Drag culture of Los Angeles: intangible heritage through ephemeral places

PDF

Illuminating the grid: historic power buildings of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power

PDF

Mobilizing heritage conservation as a tool for urban resilience: linkages and recommendations

PDF

Conservation 'on the natch': maintenance and remembrance at the Alcoholism Center for Women

PDF

Heritage in practice: a study of two urban rivers

PDF

Managing change on Newbury Street: a case study analysis

PDF

SoCal ski hills: a typological analysis of a cultural landscape

PDF

Interpreting historic murals: a case study approach and best practices used in Fengguo Temple

PDF

Saving Old Pasadena: where locals took on City Hall and won

PDF

Adaptive reuse and boutique hotels: a case study of the Superior Oil Company Building’s conversion to the Standard Downtown LA Hotel

PDF

Gaining a foothold: conserving Los Angeles' queer Eden(dale)

PDF

Isolation and authenticity in Los Angeles' Arts District neighborhood

PDF

Beyond Chinatown: identifying significant Chinese cultural landmarks in the San Gabriel Valley

PDF

Empowering communities through historic rehabilitation: creating a maintenance plan for public housing developments in Los Angeles

PDF

Greening historic districts with solar roofs: an exploration of Western Heights in Los Angeles

PDF

Seeing beyond the fog: preserving San Francisco's cultural heritage in the Clement Street Corridor

PDF

Beit Olam: A home everlasting -- the Jewish cemeteries of East Los Angeles

Asset Metadata

Creator Xiao, Yi (author)

Core Title Using the UNESCO Historic Urban Landscape framework: a case study of the Pico-Union neighborhood

School School of Architecture

Degree Master of Heritage Conservation

Degree Program Heritage Conservation

Publication Date 06/30/2020

Defense Date 06/28/2020

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Heritage Conservation,heritage management,historic urban landscape,OAI-PMH Harvest,Pico-Union,sustainable development,urban heritage

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Sandmeier, Trudi (committee chair), Drake Reitan, Meredith (committee member), Horak, Katie (committee member)

Creator Email xiaoyi@usc.edu,yvonne7xiao@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-323311

Unique identifier UC11673188

Identifier etd-XiaoYi-8626.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-323311 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-XiaoYi-8626.pdf

Dmrecord 323311

Document Type Thesis

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Xiao, Yi

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA