A conference on how Malta’s industrial heritage can add value to the islands’ cultural tourism was held at The Brewery of Simonds Farsons Cisk in Mriehel. 

Entitled: “Approaches to Industrial Heritage in Malta: What works?”, the one-day conference aimed to highlight important aspects of Malta’s industrial past, its general appreciation and its significance for future generations.

The conference was organised by The Farsons Foundation in collaboration with the Department of Built Heritage, Faculty for the Built Environment at the University of Malta. 

In his opening address, Farsons Foundation’s chairman Bryan A. Gera said: “Industrial heritage existed in all phases of human development from the time of the Industrial Revolution in mid-18th century. The achievements and grandiose constructions which started off in that era set off a momentum which carries on unabated to this day.

“Farsons is counted among the pioneers of industrialisation in Malta. It is therefore quite fitting that the distinguished audience is convened today in what is referred as Farsons’ ‘Old Boardroom’ where part of the industrial heritage we enjoy today was decided upon in the late 1940s,” Mr Gera continued. 

The keynote speaker was Timothy Ambrose, an international specialist in cultural destination development and cultural heritage management. Mr Ambrose outlined a range of factors that create value from industrial heritage assets. He said that the future of our historical and economic heritage depends on a number of factors, such as securing funds for sustainable preservation, reviewing existing policies and priorities for the care and conservation and improving public understanding of the value of historical heritage. 

Mr Ambrose said: “Industrial history is an important part of cultural history. People value it for its intrinsic and instrumental values.  Today’s conference could serve as an issue for discussion in relation to Malta’s National Strategy for Cultural Heritage, the Cultural Heritage Inventory and Mepa’s scheduled sites.”

“In the UK and elsewhere in Europe from the 1950s onwards,” Mr Ambrose said, “economic and technological change, deindustrialisation and international competition between countries led progressively to a decline in extractive, processing and manufacturing industries and their supply and distribution chains.”

As the pace of change quickened decade by decade, a vast legacy of redundant industrial sites and monuments, machines and archives resulted. But given the nature of much of this heritage, it quickly became apparent that the surviving evidence base of many aspects of UK and European industrial history was increasingly at risk and in many cases was being destroyed before its preservation or documentation.

In the UK and in other countries in Europe and beyond affected by these changes, specialist and increasingly public concern over the rapid loss of this important aspect of the cultural heritage progressively led to:

- the creation of new preservation and conservation policies and strategies at national, regional and local level.

- the development of new structures for international liaison and networking e.g. The International Committee for the Conservation of the Industrial Heritage (TICCIH), European Route of Industrial Heritage.

- new thinking about how industrial heritage and the historic industrial environment could be appropriately and sustainably developed for cultural/commercial use.

As a result of these processes, the industrial heritage and the historic industrial environment have seen two main (often linked) approaches to preservation, conservation, development and use:

- Cultural tourism – the development of former industrial sites and monuments as tourist attractions, industrial museums, ecomuseums, heritage centres, art  galleries, performance venues etc (the cultural heritage approach).

- Commercial development and reuse – housing, retail, offices, catering, craft production, holiday accommodation etc (the commercial approach).

In parallel, given increasing public interest in the industrial heritage, industrial tourism has also developed with visitors interested to see contemporary production processes and techniques.

So where have we now reached after five to six decades of work within the field of industrial heritage and industrial tourism?

Protecting significant industrial heritage assets

At international level, a good example is the progressive extension of World Heritage Site designation to include industrial heritage sites and monuments. Some 8% of inscribed cultural heritage sites on the World Heritage Site list are industrial by nature - the Zollverein industrial complex in Land Nordrhein-Westfalen is one good example from many.

A similar percentage of tentative cultural heritage sites, that is those sites which are currently being proposed for inscription by different countries, are industrial by nature. The majority of the inscribed industrial heritage sites are in Europe and the USA.

Combining the inscribed sites and the tentative list shows however a much wider distribution of sites than previously, now including for example a number of sites in Africa and South America. This reflects a growing recognition of the value and significance of industrial heritage in all parts of the world.

Similarly at national level, most countries in Europe have now included significant industrial heritage assets on their registers of protected sites, through for example such processes as listing and scheduling. Taylor’s Foundry in Loughborough is a good example from the UK – a foundry incidentally that over the years has looked after church bells from Malta.

Industrial heritage as cultural tourism

Over this period, we have also seen a very extensive range of industrial monuments and sites developed as heritage attractions. They vary widely in scale and type and date, reflecting many different aspects of the industrial heritage – quarries, mills, canals, railways, factories, boatyards etc. They also vary widely in approaches to interpretation, governance, management and funding. There are many models that have been developed to care for and interpret significant heritage assets.

In parallel with individual sites and monuments, whole industrial landscapes have been developed as cultural tourism attractions – Iron Bridge Gorge is an excellent example of how a historic built environment has been preserved and presented to public audiences together with monuments such as the iconic Iron Bridge and a range of museums helping to interpret industrial heritage collections.

Museums have also played an important role in the preservation and interpretation of industrial heritage material where it has had to be relocated from its original location. A wide range of new museums has been developed in Europe to house industrial collections. The new transport museum in Glasgow, one of the great industrial cities of Europe, focuses on different aspects of transport – but there are many industrial museums that have been established often in former industrial buildings that tell the story of individual industries or the industrial history of a town or city or region. In some cases, these serve as site museums interpreting former industrial monuments and historic industrial landscapes, in other cases, they are separate from their original location of production and/or use.

The re-use of industrial heritage assets

One form of preservation of former industrial buildings and structures is their adaptation for contemporary purposes, for example offices or residential developments. There are now countless and often very imaginative examples throughout Europe demonstrating the value of retention and re-use.

An example from Amsterdam shows what can be achieved through skilful architectural and engineering intervention.

Kraanspoor in the Netherlands is a light-weight transparent office building of three floors built on top of a concrete craneway in a former shipyard in Amsterdam. The industrial monument built in 1952, has a length of 270 metres, a height of 13.5 metres and a width of 8.7 metres. The offices were completed in 2007.

In parallel with the retention and re-use of individual buildings, whole industrial landscapes with their buildings and structures have been preserved and redesigned for contemporary needs. Liverpool, one of the great international mercantile cities, provides one good example among many. Many of its former industrial buildings have been converted for residential and office accommodation, as well as for retail, restaurants and recreation purposes.

1.      Industrial tourism

In parallel with developments in the industrial heritage sector, public interest in contemporary industrial processes has increased significantly in recent decades. A large number of important European and international businesses have established tour programmes for their factory and production centres and created brand showcases explaining their work.

Volkswagen’s brand showcase, Autostadt, is one of the best known and largest examples, but brand showcases come in all shapes and sizes, and present and explain a very wide range of contemporary industrial practice. In many cases, brand showcases provide the visitor with an understanding of where the business has come from (heritage), where it is at present (contemporary) and where its future direction lies (future).

New information and communication technologies are transforming the ways in which the world of industry is being presented in physical and virtual dimensions. Digital technologies and new media are helping to explain often highly complex industrial processes on-site and off-site and on-line. They are particularly valuable in the context of interpretation.

The Warner Brothers film of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory by Roald Dahl is a fascinating if unusual example of industrial tourism. It combines tremendous creativity and new technologies to raise many questions about the role of industry and the role of the consumer in contemporary life.

2. Creating value from industrial heritage assets

Making the case-for-support and deciding on the best ways to conserve and/or use industrial heritage assets depend on a wide range of factors including:

- Existing policy contexts and heritage strategies

- The historical/archaeological significance of the assets based on research

- Their conservation status and opportunities for or restrictions on redevelopment

- Physical and operational relationships to the wider location or destination

- Capital costs of development

- Operational costs and sustainability

- Public interest in and demand for industrial heritage

- Value for money

One way to consider how to value industrial heritage assets, whether collections or buildings and landscapes, is to look at them from three different but linked perspectives:

Intrinsic Values – on this basis, industrial heritage assets are defined as assets that groups of people or communities value, regardless of ownership. This may be for example in terms of their perceived historical, aesthetic, spiritual, social or scientific /technological value.

Instrumental Values – here value is considered in terms of the benefits that can flow from investing in or protecting industrial heritage assets. These benefits may be, for example, economic, social or environmental.

Institutional Values – these are values displayed by organisations looking after industrial heritage assets e.g. trust, accountability, sustainability, and corporate social responsibility. For such organisations the intrinsic value and the instrumental value are likely to be equally important.

While it is relatively easy to consider the instrumental values of heritage assets, it is more difficult to quantify intrinsic values. It is however important to understand how people feel about the industrial heritage: public attitudes towards industrial heritage form an important part of the evidence base in building the case-for-support for their protection and use.

A good example of this lies in recent qualitative market research by English Heritage which has been used to evidence its programmes supporting the industrial heritage. 85% of the public agree that it is important to identify significant industrial sites for protection. They think that it is as important to preserve our industrial heritage as other heritage assets e.g. castles and country houses (80%).

They value industrial heritage as a reminder of the nation’s history (71%), for its educational value (75%) and because it can provide direct links to families' past (33%). 71% agree that industrial heritage sites should be re-used for modern day purposes while making sure their character is preserved. 44% are interested in helping to protect the industrial heritage in their local area. (Source: English Heritage 2012)

3. Definitions

In discussing industrial heritage, it is important to define the terms being used. ‘Industrial heritage’ as a term means different things to different people.

A core focus has been traditionally on buildings, sites, structures and landscapes together with machinery, objects, records, and archives related to extraction, processing, manufacturing and distribution industries from the start of the Industrial Revolution in the eighteenth century to the mid-twentieth century when de-industrialisation picks up speed.

But we should remember that the industrial heritage/historic industrial environment will have different time-depths in different countries depending on the history and range of industrial development. Compare for example the timescale of the development of extractive and manufacturing industries in the UK to the timescale of the development of those industries in China today.

Whatever the definitions we use, it is necessary to realise from the outset that industrial history is an important part of cultural history – people value it for both its intrinsic and instrumental values.

It follows that industrial heritage and the historic industrial environment (‘what history has left behind’) are an important part or sub-set of the wider cultural heritage and the wider historic cultural environment.

In this regard, it is interesting to examine the extent to which Malta’s industrial heritage is currently represented in Malta’s National Strategy for the Cultural Heritage, the Cultural Heritage Inventory and MEPA’s scheduled sites and how it is reported on through the annual reporting processes.

So what do we mean by ‘industry’? A helpful approach is to look at Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) systems. These vary from country to country depending on the industrial base and its development.

As an example, the UK’s Standard Industrial Classification was first established in 1948 and has been progressively revised since, broadly decade by decade. It covers a much wider range of working practices than in those industries described above and associated with ‘traditional’ industrial heritage e.g. service industries. In many cases of course, we have seen the development of wholly new industries in the past half century.

But it is one useful context in which to consider ‘traditional’ industrial heritage. It enables us to think of historic and contemporary industry more holistically within the spectrum of economic history and heritage. It helps to bring the story of industrial endeavour up to date and to see how change and continuity has shaped the picture of industry today. Essentially, this approach tells ‘The story of Malta at work’ through time.

Presenting and interpreting ‘The story of Malta at work’ from this holistic perspective may provide a much stronger case-for-support for support and investment in the industrial heritage than simply thinking of the industrial heritage in terms of the past.

4. Sites, objects and people

A key dimension to be considered alongside the sites, objects and records are people and their differing involvement through time with industrial processes and products.

By this I mean people as:

- employers and workers in the industries, the supply chains and distribution systems

- investors and shareholders in the industries

- industrial communities supporting the industries

- consumers and users of products produced by the industries  at community, family, and individual level

Exploring industrial heritage through the stories of people is a powerful way of connecting with audiences in both the physical and virtual domains. This is where industrial history meets social history. One can for example usefully explore the significance of industrial heritage through connections to working life, community life, family life and personal life.

A major industrial complex like Farsons Brewery or a simple product like a can of Kinnie can thus be seen at many different levels through the different perspectives of people. Telling those stories through those perspectives helps industrial heritage as well as contemporary industrial history ‘come alive’ for audiences.

5. The future

In developing a strategic approach to the care, promotion and use of the industrial heritage, the following points need to be borne in mind. Many of these points reflect approaches already being taken to other heritage sectors - as such it is relatively straightforward to include industrial heritage into existing systems for the care, promotion and use of the heritage:

- developing a joined-up approach through partnerships;

- defining the meaning and coverage of the industrial heritage and the historic industrial environment;

- auditing/mapping and documenting what survives/exists for each industry in public and private ownership;

- documenting ‘traditional’ industrial processes, techniques, and skills and mitigating change/loss e.g. through training and craft apprenticeships;

- integrating research data into national heritage databases;

- using that evidence base to develop a policy-led and planned approach to caring for and interpreting the industrial heritage in line with other heritage sectors;

- reviewing existing policies/priorities for the care and conservation of the historic industrial environment and industrial heritage assets;

- improving public understanding of the value of industrial heritage and the historic industrial environment;

- securing funds for the appropriate and sustainable preservation, interpretation and use of the industrial heritage and historic industrial environment; and

- evaluating progress against policy and plan objectives.

The Dean of the Faculty for the Built Environment at the University of Malta, Professor Alex Torpiano thanked the Farsons Foundation for taking the leading role in organising this conference – a first in Malta. He explained the identity of industrial heritage. “Industrial heritage is not only a history of architecture but encompasses machines, and the buildings in which they were housed, as well as the fabric of a changing society. It is that which a past generation has preserved and handed to the present and which a significant group of the population wishes to hand to the future. The building we are in is an example of this process.

“As can be seen, the industrial heritage, in this case, is therefore not just the façade of the building, but the whole building, with its construction process and materials it was built with, the drawings specifying how it was to be constructed, as well as the whole brewing processes contained within it. Preservation of heritage needs to facilitate the telling of a story, so that the whole point of preservation is widely understood,” Prof Torpiano added.

A panel discussion on how to repair, restore and re-use Malta’s industrial past was held with the participation of a number of professionals and organisations that are pioneering  industrial heritage in Malta.

The panel consisted of Prof Robert Ghirlando from the Faculty of Engineering; James Licari, president of the Malta Association of Professional Conservator-Restorers (MASPCo-Re); Joseph Magro Conti, heritage planning unit manager at MEPA’s Planning Directorate; Ray Polidano, director general of the Malta Aviation Museum Foundation and Godwin Vella, senior curator Ethnography at Heritage Malta. The debate was chaired by Prof JoAnn Cassar, Head Department of Built Heritage, Faculty for the Built Environment.

Interview with Tim Ambrose

 Mr Ambrose, in your presentation, you spoke about the UK’s industrial heritage. Do you think Malta has its own industrial heritage?

TA: Malta has a rich industrial heritage which is both externally derived and internally developed. It reflects the country’s extensive European and international connections and its own progressive industrial development. Industrial heritage (‘what history has left behind’) includes industrial structures, buildings, sites, and landscapes together with machinery, objects, records, and archives related to the different industries that have been established and/or developed in Malta in the past – bearing in mind that the past can be thought of in different time frames. Much of Malta’s built and natural environment, the backdrop to our daily lives, has been affected by industrial intervention in one form or another through time and space.

A lot depends of course on how one defines the term ’industrial’. I take a broad definition of industry and include for example service industries alongside traditional manufacturing and production industries like ship building and power generation or agriculture and brewing. This allows one to consider historic and contemporary industry more holistically within the spectrum of economic history and heritage. It helps to bring the story of industrial endeavour in Malta up to date and to see how change and continuity has shaped the picture of industry today. Essentially, this approach allows us to tell ‘The story of Malta at work’.

Many seem to think old and derelict factories should be pulled down and make way for new buildings. Do you agree with this?

TA:  I think that there is always a need to stand back and ask the questions – are these buildings of architectural and/or historical significance, can/should they be retained and re-used in whole or in part for sustainable new purposes, or have they really gone beyond their shelf-life? There are countless examples through other European countries where former industrial buildings and structures of different scale have been imaginatively adapted and converted for contemporary purposes, for example offices or residential developments, hotels or cultural spaces. Demonstrating the potential value of their retention and reuse through feasibility assessment and showing what can be achieved through skilful architectural and engineering intervention can have a powerful influence on people’s attitudes to and interest in former industrial structures.

Can you point out regeneration projects that have turned areas of industrial blight into modern and contemporary spaces?

TA:  There are a lot of regeneration projects in Europe that have transformed former industrial areas – in both urban and rural contexts. Some of these have happened in a relatively short time scale, others have taken place over longer periods. Some are very large scale, others are smaller scale. Examples in the UK include former docklands in London, Glasgow, Belfast, Cardiff, Swansea and Liverpool where historic buildings and structures have been retained and re-used alongside new built developments; in Ireland, former docklands in Dublin have been transformed into new residential and office quarters; in Spain, for example, former industrial zones in Barcelona and Bilbao have been regenerated through the introduction of new cultural facilities alongside office and residential development – the list is really endless.

What the successful projects mainly all have in common is effective master planning where the parts of the sum and the sum of the parts are clearly understood. Getting the balance right between attractor elements, service elements and infrastructure to create sustainable new destinations that people want to work in, live in and visit for leisure or cultural use is critical for success.

Were the projects you described in your presentation funded by local or regional governments or by the private sector?

TA: The majority of major regeneration projects were plurally funded by a range of public and private sector bodies. More often than not, the public sector provides the policy and planning context within which development may be financially supported through grants or loans from central or local government, and the private sector funds discrete development projects. In a number of cases, particularly where cultural facilities are an integral part of the overall development process, not-for-profit foundations may also be involved. There is no one formula.