The price of preserving our cultural heritage

The Wanglee family in Bangkok is an old Chinese family that dates back to the reign of King Rama V (1868 – 1910). In 1926, the family built a row of houses based on the designs of a French architect. These old two story shop houses are located in Soi Charoen Krung 52 or Soi Wanglee near the Chao Phraya River, just south of the Taksin Bridge where the skytrain terminates.

Just beyond the old houses used to be the river pier where early immigrants from China disembarked and took their first steps on firm ground after a long and hazardous sea journey in the mid 19th century.

Later, the owners donated the land in Soi Wanglee to Wat Yannawa, a temple nearby. The temple then became the landlord and leased the buildings to the occupants. The descendants of some of the original tenants are still living there. The people in the area were known as the Wanglee community, after the family who built the buildings.

This cozy arrangement ended in 2004, when Wat Yannawa filed a lawsuit to evict the residents. The temple wanted the land to be redeveloped into a commercial complex. Most of the residents have accepted the compensation and moved. But a few diehards have resisted eviction and enlisted the help of a host of agencies to plea their case to preserve the buildings as a historical site.

This case brings to mind several issues regarding temple community relations and the preservation of historical buildings in the face of modern development, commercial pressures and harsh economic realities.

Traditionally, the relationship between temple and local communities in Thailand has been one of cordial coexistence. Many communities are clustered around the temple and the temple school. The temple provides for the spiritual needs of the people who in turn contribute to the basic material needs of the temple.

In this case Wat Yannawa appears to be doing something detrimental to the interests of the community for the sake commercial gain. The temple's action seems at odds with its religious mission.

Even though the 81 year old buildings don't meet the 100 year criteria for historical sites as laid down by the Department of Fine Arts, the surrounding area has a rich history. We're still destroying a valuable cultural heritage.

But preservation doesn't just mean leaving the buildings as they are and do nothing. Preservation comes at a price. It entails restoring the old buildings in their original form and maintaining them. Who's going to foot the bill?

What are the alternatives? It's unlikely the existing tenants can afford it. Unless we're prepared to preserve their traditional way of life and let the buildings go to rot over the years.

Even if the temple can afford it with temple funds, the buildings when restored, in all fairness, must be for the benefit of the general community, not just the existing tenants.

A fairy godmother like a philanthropist would be ideal but that's wishful thinking.

Private developers will expect a return on their investments. Private ventures into such projects have been criticized as preserving the shell, the buildings and killing the soul, the old way of life. That's the social price to pay. If the original occupants were left intact, who would sink a single cent in the project?

Landlords will be very reluctant to spend huge amounts on preservation when the rents they can charge for residential property are less than that of commercial property.

That leaves the government. Any government will be hard pressed to justify spending public funds to preserve buildings for private use. The buildings must be a public facility.

A compromise would be legislation ensuring that developers preserve the facade and external features of historical buildings with internal use left to their discretion. Old colonial buildings can be converted to small offices, shops, trendy restaurants, quaint cafes and wine bars. The area must be a commercial center in its own right to ensure its sustenance and survival.

Whatever the case, the conclusion is unavoidable. Unless the residents can pay for the preservation themselves, they're going to lose their homes. There's also a price to preserving our cultural heritage. It isn't free. It's a matter of how much we're willing to pay and how much we're willing to forgo. Someone's got to pay for it ultimately. But who?

The author, Eric Lim, lives in Bangkok and writes for the historical travel website, Tour Bangkok Legacies. For other communities that have survived and strived and those that are fast disappearing, please see Bangkok Communities.