Mahakan housing meet ‘likely to fail’
A meeting on the management plan of the Mahakan Fort community is likely to hit a snag as the fate of the community remains unclear.
A panel, which was established in March this year to solve the conflict that has dragged on for almost 30 years, has made some progress on keeping some of the houses, but not the community as a whole.
In recent months, the city has embarked on demolishing the houses despite concerns from experts and conservationists. From 30 houses on a conservation list, the city insisted only 18 are worth keeping.
Under the plan, panel members are to meet and sign a management agreement today. Association of Siamese Architects vice-president for urban activities and public policy Sudjit Sananwai said experts and community representatives are still waiting for details of the management plan. If they are not provided, they would not sign anything, she said.
If there are no specific details of the plan, including the precise houses to be conserved, the number of families to be allowed to stay and how to manage the land plot in writing, Ms Sudjit said the party would not sign any agreement.
Ms Sudjit said families in the community proposed to share remaining houses if the BMA agreed to keep only 18 houses, which means each will accommodate more than one family.
However, the different views between authorities and experts combined with the community may lead to a dead-end.
While the BMA had stood firm on its stance to conserve only the structure with architectural heritage, experts insisted residents would have to be kept, to keep the spirit of the community and make it a “living museum”.
A source at City Hall said the BMA was expected to agree on the conservation of the 18 houses. But it is unclear if the agency would not evict the residents.
The source also said the resolution settled by the tripartite panel will not yet be final.
In the view of the state, the embattled Mahakan community, struggling against a state eviction order, is just trash that must be removed from the historical site. Many academics, however, disagree. Ploenpote Atthakor talks to Rungsima Kullapat, a US-based urban culture expert, who regards the community as a living heritage site.
What makes you interested in the Mahakan land conflict? How long have you studied the case?
I found out about the Mahakan case from a presentation at the Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn Anthropoligy Centre about six years ago.
I became quite confused about the case because two sides — one representing the state and the other members of the community — offer different sets of information.
Then I followed the news and ended up writing my opinion to a Thai newspaper about the Palimpsest Landscape Concept, which compares historical sites in Rome and the Mahakan site. I modified this from a work by Donald Meinig (an American geographer) which I used in my dissertation.
The so-called Palimpsest Landscape Concept explains how historic sites can be used again and again. How can this concept be applied to the Mahakan case?
The Palimpsest Landscape Concept is a universal concept that can be used in every place where humans live and have lived. The Mahakan community is an historic community. The city, no matter how it develops, and the people must co-exist. A city without people is called an abandoned city or ghost town. We can’t deny the fact that Bangkok is a diverse city and has been a melting pot for immigrants since the early settlement of the Rattanakosin era.
Every landscape has been used again and again by human beings. People use the land and die; then their descendants use the same land. As time goes on, the culture changes and the people’s ways of life change. Some old dwellings are abandoned because of economic change. Every area in the world, even the wealthiest city, has cycles of up and down.
The Mahakan community also experiences this phenomenon. People always move, but they represent their ancestors. It’s difficult to prove the origin of people, but we can preserve the heritage of a living community. People still use the old land again and again.
In my opinion, Mahakan is a living heritage, and that goes far beyond the idea of a living museum which means the community is just a display space while the people are reduced to “display objects”.
Having said that, I think the government shouldn’t focus only on the tourist spots. We should educate “visitors” — I love this word better than “tourists” — to know our old city and the living community.
The definition of living heritage or living community is that people continue using it. The Mahakan area is a part of Bangkok’s heritage that has continually been used; it is a palimpsest landscape. This community is part of the historic area.
People come and go, are born and die here, generation after generation. The people should be encouraged to take good care of their homes, too. They should be custodians protecting their heritage rather than destroying it. They should make this historic area a walkable and liveable Mahakan. However, visitors should respect the community’s privacy.
In my opinion, sustainable tourism management is the community’s responsibility, not the government’s.
As you may realise, the city has been relentlessly evicting the community. Even when it agrees to turn the area into a living museum, there are no people there. Do you think that is the right thing to do? If not, what should be the way out?
The city administration has a different view. However, the cleanliness and order of the city has nothing to do with its development.
Community members should tell their own stories as local guides. They are the local geographers; no one knows their land like they do. The government will have good citizens to protect the nation. People can be the guardians; they are the spirit and fabric of the land. The people are the intangible heritage of their neighbourhood and the city. They also embody the history of the city. Eviction may still be necessary in some cases and while we should not be above the law, we should use morality in handling the case.
Eviction is a form of violence that will stir up conflict and resistance. I think, to a certain extent, the city administration has tried to compromise and pay heed to the views of the community and its network. The Mahakan community has long struggled. From an enclosed area decades ago, the community has opened and turned itself into a public space where anyone can visit for leisure or a workout.
It would be sad if such a public space were to vanish due to a state policy.
Cities around the world have turned to the idea of historic urban culture, in which old communities can adapt into urban settings as a way out of conflict. It’s not possible to keep the houses without the people, or there will be no life. It’s wrong to beautify the city but kick the poor people out.
We have to keep the heritage while we still have a chance to do so. Cities are like our mothers, and we have to take good care of them just like we treat our mother. They may be old and not so beautiful, and full of wrinkles, but they are still our mother who deserving of good care.
‘‘ Eviction is a form of violence that will stir up conflict and resistance.